US House Resolution 1553 offers go-ahead for Israel to attack Iran

Posted on July 25, 2010 by Eric Verlo

House Republicans have crafted a resolution to offer US approval for Israel to use “all means necessary” to confront Iran, reviving Holocaust fears and misquoting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where “wipe from the map” conflating the “Zionist Regime” with the Jews. Below is the full text of the resolution, supported by Republican congress members including Colorado’s Doug Lamborn.

111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

H. RES. 1553

Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 22, 2010

Mr. GOHMERT (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BONNER, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. CULBERSON, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. HERGER, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LATTA, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. OLSON, Mr. ROONEY, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. KINGSTON, and Mr. CARTER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.

Whereas with the dawn of modern Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, some 150 years ago, the Jewish people determined to return to their homeland in the Land of Israel from the lands of their dispersion;

Whereas in 1922, the League of Nations mandated that the Jewish people were the legal sovereigns over the Land of Israel and that legal mandate has never been superseded;

Whereas in the aftermath of the Nazi-led Holocaust from 1933 to 1945, in which the Germans and their collaborators murdered 6,000,000 Jewish people in a premeditated act of genocide, the international community recognized that the Jewish state, built by Jewish pioneers must gain its independence from Great Britain;

Whereas the United States was the first nation to recognize Israel’s independence in 1948, and the State of Israel has since proven herself to be a faithful ally of the United States in the Middle East;

Whereas the United States and Israel have a special friendship based on shared values, and together share the common goal of peace and security in the Middle East;

Whereas, on October 20, 2009, President Barack Obama rightly noted that the United States–Israel relationship is a ‘‘bond that is much more than a strategic alliance.’’;

Whereas the national security of the United States, Israel, and allies in the Middle East face a clear and present danger from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to deliver them;

Whereas Israel would face an existential threat from a nuclear weapons-armed Iran;

Whereas President Barack Obama has been firm and clear in declaring United States opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran, stating on November 7, 2008, ‘‘Let me state—repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign. Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable.’’;

Whereas, on October 26, 2005, at a conference in Tehran called ‘‘World Without Zionism’’, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated, ‘‘God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism’’;

Whereas the New York Times reported that during his October 26, 2005, speech, President Ahmadinejad called for ‘‘this occupying regime [Israel] to be wiped off the map’’;

Whereas, on April 14, 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ‘‘Like it or not, the Zionist regime [Israel] is heading toward annihilation’’;

Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ‘‘I must announce that the Zionist regime [Israel], with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene’’;

Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ‘‘Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started’’;

Whereas, on May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested a surface-to-surface long range missile with an approximate range of 1,200 miles;

Whereas Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons;

Whereas Iran has been caught building three secret nuclear facilities since 2002;

Whereas Iran continues its support of international terrorism, has ordered its proxy Hizbullah to carry out catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the bombing of the Jewish AMIA Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1994, and could give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization in the future;

Whereas Iran has refused to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency with full transparency and access to its nuclear program;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 states that according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, ‘‘Iran has not established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy-water-related projects as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) . . .’’;

Whereas at July 2009’s G-8 Summit in Italy, Iran was given a September 2009 deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs and Iran offered a five-page document lamenting the ‘‘ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations’’ and included various subjects, but left out any mention of Iran’s own nuclear program which was the true issue in question;

Whereas the United States has been fully committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear threat, and has made boundless efforts seeking such a resolution and to determine if such a resolution is even possible; and

Whereas the United States does not want or seek war with Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) condemns the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its threats of ‘‘annihilating’’ the United States and the State of Israel, for its continued support of international terrorism, and for its incitement of genocide of the Israeli people;

(2) supports using all means of persuading the Government of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons;

(3) reaffirms the United States bond with Israel and pledges to continue to work with the Government of Israel and the people of Israel to ensure that their sovereign nation continues to receive critical economic and military assistance, including missile defense capabilities, needed to address the threat of Iran; and

(4) expresses support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time.

Soccer offsides rule is agreement not to score behind your opponent’s back

Posted on June 23, 2010 by Eric Verlo

The US pretends the International Criminal Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over its war crimes, and thinks the same immunity should shield us from FIFA referees I guess.

The USA-Algeria match today was hard fought, admittedly team USA displayed an offensive edge. Rooting for Team Weasel Empire doesn’t automatically make you a Nazi, but I’ll be curious to hear firsthand accounts of the hostility our compatriots faced in the stands. The silver lining to a US victory is that eventually our sportscasters will have to apologize to American TV viewers about the constant booing whenever USA gets the ball.

Vuvuzelas may turn out to be a fortuitous annoyance for Western broadcasters. They mask the dynamics of how the spectators are really responding. I was slow to realize what I was hearing during the USA-Algeria match, a consistent switch from boos to cheers whenever the ball changed hands. I’m surprised I didn’t see more commentary about it.

Honestly, the TV talking heads spoke of the US supporter presence being “huge,” and didn’t bat an eye at the eruption of disapproval when Landon Donovan scored the last minute goal to net a USA victory.

The next match pits the US against Ghana, which sets up a plausible excuse for why the entire stadium will be cheering against the USA. Much as I’d like to see an African team advance, I hope the Americans survive, because the more American stateside see our athletes jeered and booed, the sooner our sorry imperialist swagger can face abrupt self-reflection.

Eduardo Galeano’s SOCCER IN SUN AND SHADOW offers a great explanation of the Offsides Rule. Simply put, it reflects the gentleman’s agreement not to go behind your adversary’s back. What sport is there to kicking at an unprotected goal?

Get behind our soldiers or get in front

Posted on May 27, 2010 by Eric Verlo

For Memorial Day we’ve got a Stryker Brigade in Southern Afghanistan caught executing Afghan civilians and beating comrades who objected. They want our backing yet cannot support fellow soldiers who choose not to commit war crimes. Which should we?

So long as our murderous GIs aren’t wearing Nazi armbands, Americans stand behind them.

The Gazan People’s Front or People’s Front of Gaza less funny than Nazirene

Posted on May 27, 2010 by Eric Verlo

A Gaza Flotilla PR mishap, as minor as a participant speaking out of place, was seized upon by one reporter to suggest rivalry between co-sponsors of the relief convoy due to convene Saturday at Gaza’s door. When an interviewee said “Free Palestine Movement” instead of “Free Gaza,” the reporter recalled scenes from Monty Python’s Life of Brian and the mortal rivalry between the “People’s Judean Front” and the “People’s Front of Judea,” often understood to lampoon the PLO and it splinter groups. Haha. But why didn’t the reporter mention Python’s other irreverent terrorist gang also fighting the Roman occupation: the uber-Zionist Nazirene? Because Otto and the Nazirene, that’s right, not Nazarene, were cut from the video when control was wrestled from Monty Python for the rights.

Why the offense? Because they wore swastika-like Stars-of-David and they goose-stepped? Because they followed a small-mustached leader named Otto who dreamed of a racially pure state for Jews only?

I’m surprised that more Monty Python fans aren’t livid at the suggestion the classic has been censored for all posterity. But only those who saw Life of Brian in the theater, or can pick up an out-of-print paperback of the screenplay, would know what lines successive viewers don’t hear to memorize.

Lines like these between Eric Idle and Graham Chapman:

OTTO: It’s time, you know … Time that we Jews racially purified ourselves … We need more living room. We must move into the traditionally Jewish areas of Samaria.

BRIAN: What about the Samaritans?

OTTO: Well, we can put them in little camps. And after Samaria we must move into Jordan and create a great Jewish state that will last a thousand years.

Imagine a Zionist depicted using Hitler’s expression “living space!” Lebensraum meant a homeland where the German people could live unmolested, with room for their population to grow.

Associating Zionists with Nazis has always meant courting trouble. Does it sound incredible that defenders of Israel would take a knife to Monty Python’s work? Know any other blockbuster movies of the late 70s which mysteriously shed memorable scenes when they reemerged on video?

Criterion recently released a DVD with extras that purport to include the deleted scenes, you can see them on Youtube, but they are actually outtakes with bits missing still, in particular the lines above.

I wrote about this at length in an earlier post, when I came upon the missing dialog just by chance. In that post I also transcribed the full text of the censored scenes.

Back to the joke made at the Free Gaza Movement‘s expense. Hopefully the organizers can laugh it off. Really Jerusalem-based reporter Jackie Rowland was making hay of an email shown to her by a participant being compelled to switch the word “Palestine” for “Gaza” because they were not authorized to speak officially for the “Free Gaza Movement.” With any improvised collection of activists, only those tasked should speak for the whole. Especially someone who may have been admonished beforehand not to present themselves as a spokesman.

I cannot presume to know what were the motives in this instance, but it’s been my experience that characters bent on disrupting the work of activists often put themselves before the cameras to sabotage the message. Leaders have to guard against that tactic.

The reporter should have know as much. Imagine interviewing Rush Limbaugh and taking him at his word that he represented the White House.

The activist should have made that fact more clear. It certainly was disingenuous of the reporter however, because it would be easy to confirm that there was no such group, instead of concluding that rival non-profits were vying for taking credit for the convoy. In that way Jackie Rowland’s article seemed like a mean-spirited laugh.

The groups which have brought the multi-million dollar enterprise together that is the Gaza Freedom Flotilla appear to me to be far from adversaries, otherwise how could this be the ninth unified attempt?

The same cannot be said for Fatah and Hamas of course, nor of the extremists in Israel.

The latest reports have the relief convoy meeting in the international waters off of Gaza on Saturday. The story has been playing well in the international press, and is beginning to see daylight in the US. Apart from those with a Zionist slant, two decent reports emerged today in the WSJ and Time.

Robert Fisk and the language of power, danger words: Competing Narratives

Posted on May 26, 2010 by Eric Verlo

Celebrated reporter -and verb- Robert Fisk had harsh words, “danger words” he called them, for host Al-Jazeera where he gave an address about the language of power which has infected newsman and reader alike. Beware your unambiguous acceptance of empty terms into which state propagandists let you infer nuance: power players, activism, non-state actors, key players, geostrategic players, narratives, external players, meaningful solutions, –meaning what?
I’ll not divulge why these stung Al-J, but I’d like to detail the full list, and commit not to condone their false usage at NMT, without ridicule, “quotes” or disclaimer.

Fisk listed several expressions which he attributes to government craftsmen. Unfortunately journalists have been parroting these terms without questioning their dubious meaning. Fisk began with a favorite, the endless, disingenuous, “peace process.” What is that – victor-defined purgatory? Why would “peace” be a “process” Fisk asks.

How appropriate that some of the West’s strongest critics are linguists. Fisk lauded the current seagoing rescue of Gaza, the convoy determined to break the Israeli blockade. He compared it to the Berlin Airlift, when governments saw fit to help besieged peoples, even former enemies. This time however, the people have to act where their governments do not.

I read recently that the Gaza Freedom Flotilla might be preparing accommodations for Noam Chomsky to join the passage. Won’t that be an escalation? I imagine if Robert Fisk would climb aboard too, it would spell doom for any chance the relief supplies would reach the Gazans. A ship convoy with Chomsky and Fisk on board would present an opportunity that an Israeli torpedo could not resist.

Here is his list. If you can’t peruse the lecture, at least ponder these words with as much skepticism as you can. The parenthesis denote my shorthand.

peace process (detente under duress, while enduring repression)

“Peace of the Brave” (accept your subjugation, coined for Algeria, then France lost)

“Hearts and Minds” (Vietnam era psych-ops, then US lost)

spike (to avoid saying: increase)

surge (reinforcements, you send them in you’re losing)

key players (only puppets and their masters need apply)

back on track (the objective has been on rails?)

peace envoy (in mob-speak: the cleaner)

road map (winner’s bill of lading for the spoils)

experts (vetted opinions)

indirect talks (concurrent soliloquies, duets performed solo in proximity to common fiddler calling tune)

competing narratives (parallel universes in one? naturally the perpetrator is going to tell a different tale, disputing that of victim’s; ungoing result is no justice and no injustice) examples:
occupied vs. disputed;
wall vs. security barrier;
colonization vs settlements, outposts or Jewish neighborhoods.

foreign fighters (them, but always us)

Af-Pak (ignores third party India and thus dispute to Kashmir)

appeasers (sissies who don’t have bully’s back)

Weapons of Mass Destruction (not Iraq, now not Iran)

think tanks (ministry of propaganda privatized)

challenges (avoids they are problems)

intervention (asserted authority by military force)

change agents (by undisclosed means?)

Until asked otherwise, I’ll append Fisk’s talk here:

Robert Fisk, The Independent newspaper’s Middle East correspondent, gave the following address to the fifth Al Jazeera annual forum on May 23.

Power and the media are not just about cosy relationships between journalists and political leaders, between editors and presidents. They are not just about the parasitic-osmotic relationship between supposedly honourable reporters and the nexus of power that runs between White House and state department and Pentagon, between Downing Street and the foreign office and the ministry of defence. In the western context, power and the media is about words – and the use of words.

It is about semantics.

It is about the employment of phrases and clauses and their origins. And it is about the misuse of history; and about our ignorance of history.

More and more today, we journalists have become prisoners of the language of power.

Is this because we no longer care about linguistics? Is this because lap-tops ‘correct’ our spelling, ‘trim’ our grammar so that our sentences so often turn out to be identical to those of our rulers? Is this why newspaper editorials today often sound like political speeches?

Let me show you what I mean.

For two decades now, the US and British – and Israeli and Palestinian – leaderships have used the words ‘peace process’ to define the hopeless, inadequate, dishonourable agreement that allowed the US and Israel to dominate whatever slivers of land would be given to an occupied people.

I first queried this expression, and its provenance, at the time of Oslo – although how easily we forget that the secret surrenders at Oslo were themselves a conspiracy without any legal basis. Poor old Oslo, I always think! What did Oslo ever do to deserve this? It was the White House agreement that sealed this preposterous and dubious treaty – in which refugees, borders, Israeli colonies – even timetables – were to be delayed until they could no longer be negotiated.

And how easily we forget the White House lawn – though, yes, we remember the images – upon which it was Clinton who quoted from the Qur’an, and Arafat who chose to say: “Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. President.” And what did we call this nonsense afterwards? Yes, it was ‘a moment of history’! Was it? Was it so?

Do you remember what Arafat called it? “The peace of the brave.” But I don’t remember any of us pointing out that “the peace of the brave” was used originally by General de Gaulle about the end of the Algerian war. The French lost the war in Algeria. We did not spot this extraordinary irony.

Same again today. We western journalists – used yet again by our masters – have been reporting our jolly generals in Afghanistan as saying that their war can only be won with a “hearts and minds” campaign. No-one asked them the obvious question: Wasn’t this the very same phrase used about Vietnamese civilians in the Vietnam war? And didn’t we – didn’t the West – lose the war in Vietnam?

Yet now we western journalists are actually using – about Afghanistan – the phrase ‘hearts and minds’ in our reports as if it is a new dictionary definition rather than a symbol of defeat for the second time in four decades, in some cases used by the very same soldiers who peddled this nonsense – at a younger age – in Vietnam.

Just look at the individual words which we have recently co-opted from the US military.

When we westerners find that ‘our’ enemies – al-Qaeda, for example, or the Taliban -have set off more bombs and staged more attacks than usual, we call it ‘a spike in violence’. Ah yes, a ‘spike’!

A ‘spike’ in violence, ladies and gentlemen is a word first used, according to my files, by a brigadier general in the Baghdad Green Zone in 2004. Yet now we use that phrase, we extemporise on it, we relay it on the air as our phrase. We are using, quite literally, an expression created for us by the Pentagon. A spike, of course, goes sharply up, then sharply downwards. A ‘spike’ therefore avoids the ominous use of the words ‘increase in violence’ – for an increase, ladies and gentlemen, might not go down again afterwards.

Now again, when US generals refer to a sudden increase in their forces for an assault on Fallujah or central Baghdad or Kandahar – a mass movement of soldiers brought into Muslim countries by the tens of thousands – they call this a ‘surge’. And a surge, like a tsunami, or any other natural phenomena, can be devastating in its effects. What these ‘surges’ really are – to use the real words of serious journalism – are reinforcements. And reinforcements are sent to wars when armies are losing those wars. But our television and newspaper boys and girls are still talking about ‘surges’ without any attribution at all! The Pentagon wins again.

Meanwhile the ‘peace process’ collapsed. Therefore our leaders – or ‘key players’ as we like to call them – tried to make it work again. Therefore the process had to be put ‘back on track’. It was a railway train, you see. The carriages had come off the line. So the train had to be put ‘back on track’. The Clinton administration first used this phrase, then the Israelis, then the BBC.

But there was a problem when the ‘peace process’ had been put ‘back on track’ – and still came off the line. So we produced a ‘road map’ – run by a Quartet and led by our old Friend of God, Tony Blair, who – in an obscenity of history – we now refer to as a ‘peace envoy’.

But the ‘road map’ isn’t working. And now, I notice, the old ‘peace process’ is back in our newspapers and on our television screens. And two days ago, on CNN, one of those boring old fogies that the TV boys and girls call ‘experts’ – I’ll come back to them in a moment – told us again that the ‘peace process’ was being put ‘back on track’ because of the opening of ‘indirect talks’ between Israelis and Palestinians.

Ladies and gentlemen, this isn’t just about clichés – this is preposterous journalism. There is no battle between power and the media. Through language, we have become them.

Maybe one problem is that we no longer think for ourselves because we no longer read books. The Arabs still read books – I’m not talking here about Arab illiteracy rates – but I’m not sure that we in the West still read books. I often dictate messages over the phone and find I have to spend ten minutes to repeat to someone’s secretary a mere hundred words. They don’t know how to spell.

I was on a plane the other day, from Paris to Beirut – the flying time is about three hours and 45 minutes – and the woman next to me was reading a French book about the history of the Second World War. And she was turning the page every few seconds. She had finished the book before we reached Beirut! And I suddenly realised she wasn’t reading the book – she was surfing the pages! She had lost the ability to what I call ‘deep read’. Is this one of our problems as journalists, I wonder, that we no longer ‘deep read’? We merely use the first words that come to hand …

Let me show you another piece of media cowardice that makes my 63-year-old teeth grind together after 34 years of eating humus and tahina in the Middle East.

We are told, in so many analysis features, that what we have to deal with in the Middle East are ‘competing narratives’. How very cosy. There’s no justice, no injustice, just a couple of people who tell different history stories. ‘Competing narratives’ now regularly pop up in the British press. The phrase is a species – or sub-species – of the false language of anthropology. It deletes the possibility that one group of people – in the Middle East, for example – are occupied, while another group of people are doing the occupying. Again, no justice, no injustice, no oppression or oppressing, just some friendly ‘competing narratives’, a football match, if you like, a level playing field because the two sides are – are they not – ‘in competition’. It’s two sides in a football match. And two sides have to be given equal time in every story.

So an ‘occupation’ can become a ‘dispute’. Thus a ‘wall’ becomes a ‘fence’ or a ‘security barrier’. Thus Israeli colonisation of Arab land contrary to all international law becomes ‘settlements’ or ‘outposts’ or ‘Jewish neighbourhoods’.

You will not be surprised to know that it was Colin Powell, in his starring, powerless appearance as secretary of state to George W. Bush, who told US diplomats in the Middle East to refer to occupied Palestinian land as ‘disputed land’ – and that was good enough for most of the American media.

So watch out for ‘competing narratives’, ladies and gentlemen. There are no ‘competing narratives’, of course, between the US military and the Taliban. When there are, however, you’ll know the West has lost.

But I’ll give you a lovely, personal example of how ‘competing narratives’ come undone. Last month, I gave a lecture in Toronto to mark the 95th anniversary of the 1915 Armenian genocide, the deliberate mass murder of one and a half million Armenian Christians by the Ottoman Turkish army and militia. Before my talk, I was interviewed on Canadian Television, CTV, which also owns the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper. And from the start, I could see that the interviewer had a problem. Canada has a large Armenian community. But Toronto also has a large Turkish community. And the Turks, as the Globe and Mail always tell us, “hotly dispute” that this was a genocide. So the interviewer called the genocide “deadly massacres”.

Of course, I spotted her specific problem straight away. She could not call the massacres a ‘genocide’, because the Turkish community would be outraged. But equally, she sensed that ‘massacres’ on its own – especially with the gruesome studio background photographs of dead Armenians – was not quite up to defining a million and a half murdered human beings. Hence the ‘deadly massacres’. How odd!!! If there are ‘deadly’ massacres, are there some massacres which are not ‘deadly’, from which the victims walk away alive? It was a ludicrous tautology.

In the end, I told this little tale of journalistic cowardice to my Armenian audience, among whom were sitting CTV executives. Within an hour of my ending, my Armenian host received an SMS about me from a CTV reporter. “Shitting on CTV was way out of line,” the reporter complained. I doubted, personally, if the word ‘shitting’ would find its way onto CTV. But then, neither does ‘genocide’. I’m afraid ‘competing narratives’ had just exploded.

Yet the use of the language of power – of its beacon-words and its beacon-phrases -goes on among us still. How many times have I heard western reporters talking about ‘foreign fighters’ in Afghanistan? They are referring, of course, to the various Arab groups supposedly helping the Taliban. We heard the same story from Iraq. Saudis, Jordanians, Palestinian, Chechen fighters, of course. The generals called them ‘foreign fighters’. And then immediately we western reporters did the same. Calling them ‘foreign fighters’ meant they were an invading force. But not once – ever – have I heard a mainstream western television station refer to the fact that there are at least 150,000 ‘foreign fighters’ in Afghanistan. And that most of them, ladies and gentlemen, are in American or other Nato uniforms!

Similarly, the pernicious phrase ‘Af-Pak’ – as racist as it is politically dishonest – is now used by reporters when it originally was a creation of the US state department, on the day that Richard Holbrooke was appointed special US representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the phrase avoided the use of the word ‘India’ whose influence in Afghanistan and whose presence in Afghanistan, is a vital part of the story. Furthermore, ‘Af-Pak’ – by deleting India – effectively deleted the whole Kashmir crisis from the conflict in south-east Asia. It thus deprived Pakistan of any say in US local policy on Kashmir – after all, Holbrooke was made the ‘Af-Pak’ envoy, specifically forbidden from discussing Kashmir. Thus the phrase ‘Af-Pak’, which totally deletes the tragedy of Kashmir – too many ‘competing narratives’, perhaps? – means that when we journalists use the same phrase, ‘Af-Pak’, which was surely created for us journalists, we are doing the state department’s work.

Now let’s look at history. Our leaders love history. Most of all, they love the Second World War. In 2003, George W. Bush thought he was Churchill as well as George W. Bush. True, Bush had spent the Vietnam war protecting the skies of Texas from the Vietcong. But now, in 2003, he was standing up to the ‘appeasers’ who did not want a war with Saddam who was, of course, ‘the Hitler of the Tigris’. The appeasers were the British who did not want to fight Nazi Germany in 1938. Blair, of course, also tried on Churchill’s waistcoat and jacket for size. No ‘appeaser’ he. America was Britain’s oldest ally, he proclaimed – and both Bush and Blair reminded journalists that the US had stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Britain in her hour of need in 1940.

But none of this was true.

Britain’s old ally was not the United States. It was Portugal, a neutral fascist state during World War Two. Only my own newspaper, The Independent, picked this up.

Nor did America fight alongside Britain in her hour of need in 1940, when Hitler threatened invasion and the German air force blitzed London. No, in 1940 America was enjoying a very profitable period of neutrality – and did not join Britain in the war until Japan attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbour in December of 1941.

Ouch!

Back in 1956, I read the other day, Eden called Nasser the ‘Mussolini of the Nile’. A bad mistake. Nasser was loved by the Arabs, not hated as Mussolini was by the majority of Africans, especially the Arab Libyans. The Mussolini parallel was not challenged or questioned by the British press. And we all know what happened at Suez in 1956.

Yes, when it comes to history, we journalists really do let the presidents and prime ministers take us for a ride.

Today, as foreigners try to take food and fuel by sea to the hungry Palestinians of Gaza, we journalists should be reminding our viewers and listeners of a long-ago day when America and Britain went to the aid of a surrounded people, bringing food and fuel – our own servicemen dying as they did so – to help a starving population. That population had been surrounded by a fence erected by a brutal army which wished to starve the people into submission. The army was Russian. The city was Berlin. The wall was to come later. The people had been our enemies only three years earlier. Yet we flew the Berlin airlift to save them. Now look at Gaza today. Which western journalist – and we love historical parallels – has even mentioned 1948 Berlin in the context of Gaza?

Look at more recent times. Saddam had ‘weapons of mass destruction’ – you can fit ‘WMD’ into a headline – but of course, he didn’t, and the American press went through embarrassing bouts of self-condemnation afterwards. How could it have been so misled, the New York Times asked itself? It had not, the paper concluded, challenged the Bush administration enough.

And now the very same paper is softly – very softly – banging the drums for war in Iran. Iran is working on WMD. And after the war, if there is a war, more self-condemnation, no doubt, if there are no nuclear weapons projects.

Yet the most dangerous side of our new semantic war, our use of the words of power – though it is not a war since we have largely surrendered – is that it isolates us from our viewers and readers. They are not stupid. They understand words, in many cases – I fear – better than we do. History, too. They know that we are drowning our vocabulary with the language of generals and presidents, from the so-called elites, from the arrogance of the Brookings Institute experts, or those of those of the Rand Corporation or what I call the ‘THINK TANKS’. Thus we have become part of this language.

Here, for example, are some of the danger words:

· POWER PLAYERS

· ACTIVISM

· NON-STATE ACTORS

· KEY PLAYERS

· GEOSTRATEGIC PLAYERS

· NARRATIVES

· EXTERNAL PLAYERS

· PEACE PROCESS

· MEANINGFUL SOLUTIONS

· AF-PAK

· CHANGE AGENTS (whatever these sinister creatures are).

I am not a regular critic of Al Jazeera. It gives me the freedom to speak on air. Only a few years ago, when Wadah Khanfar (now Director General of Al Jazeera) was Al Jazeera’s man in Baghdad, the US military began a slanderous campaign against Wadah’s bureau, claiming – untruthfully – that Al Jazeera was in league with al-Qaeda because they were receiving videotapes of attacks on US forces. I went to Fallujah to check this out. Wadah was 100 per cent correct. Al-Qaeda was handing in their ambush footage without any warning, pushing it through office letter-boxes. The Americans were lying.

Wadah is, of course, wondering what is coming next.

Well, I have to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that all those ‘danger words’ I have just read out to you – from KEY PLAYERS to NARRATIVES to PEACE PROCESS to AF-PAK – all occur in the nine-page Al Jazeera programme for this very forum.

I’m not condemning Al Jazeera for this, ladies and gentlemen. Because this vocabulary is not adopted through political connivance. It is an infection that we all suffer from – I’ve used ‘peace process’ a few times myself, though with quotation marks which you can’t use on television – but yes, it’s a contagion.

And when we use these words, we become one with the power and the elites which rule our world without fear of challenge from the media. Al Jazeera has done more than any television network I know to challenge authority, both in the Middle East and in the West. (And I am not using ‘challenge’ in the sense of ‘problem’, as in ‘”I face many challenges,” says General McCrystal.’)

How do we escape this disease? Watch out for the spell-checkers in our lap-tops, the sub-editor’s dreams of one-syllable words, stop using Wikipedia. And read books – real books, with paper pages, which means deep reading. History books, especially.

Al Jazeera is giving good coverage to the flotilla – the convoy of boats setting off for Gaza. I don’t think they are a bunch of anti-Israelis. I think the international convoy is on its way because people aboard these ships – from all over the world – are trying to do what our supposedly humanitarian leaders have failed to do. They are bringing food and fuel and hospital equipment to those who suffer. In any other context, the Obamas and the Sarkozys and the Camerons would be competing to land US Marines and the Royal Navy and French forces with humanitarian aid – as Clinton did in Somalia. Didn’t the God-like Blair believe in humanitarian ‘intervention’ in Kosovo and Sierra Leone?

In normal circumstances, Blair might even have put a foot over the border.

But no. We dare not offend the Israelis. And so ordinary people are trying to do what their leaders have culpably failed to do. Their leaders have failed them.

Have the media? Are we showing documentary footage of the Berlin airlift today? Or of Clinton’s attempt to rescue the starving people of Somalia, of Blair’s humanitarian ‘intervention’ in the Balkans, just to remind our viewers and readers – and the people on those boats – that this is about hypocrisy on a massive scale?

The hell we are! We prefer ‘competing narratives’. Few politicians want the Gaza voyage to reach its destination – be its end successful, farcical or tragic. We believe in the ‘peace process’, the ‘road map’. Keep the ‘fence’ around the Palestinians. Let the ‘key players’ sort it out.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not your ‘key speaker’ this morning.

I am your guest, and I thank you for your patience in listening to me.

Mondovino: globalization and terroir, Robert Parker versus your good taste

Posted on May 24, 2010 by Eric Verlo

For those with a curiosity for how wine terroir is holding up against the onslaught of wine factory farming, the 10-hour miniseries version of MONDOVINO is finally available on DVD. For viewers curious about viniculture globalization under Californian colonial domination, the original feature length documentary delivers, with a long finish. Any time critics accuse a film of being one sided, you know it’s about class war.

I had my first lesson in vineyard terroir when my college-aged aunt visited my family in Alsace and spent a season picking grapes. She informed us to our horreur that everything gets stomped in that barrel, bugs and all. I didn’t drink wine then, so what did I care, but it was easy to decide that such was the artistry that probably made French wines great.

But as I said, Mondovino was about much more than wine, and now I’ll get to the point. We may lament the new commercialization of wine, but historically the occupation has always had its strictly-business types. Vintners were rarely agriculturalists who subsisted, they were wine lovers subsidized. We can wince at the Napa Valley nouveau gauche, but even Bordeaux’s great chateaus, and especially all the Premiers Crus, are owned and have been owned by businessmen money lenders, going back centuries.

The modernization and standardization which is destroying contemporary wines is simply the evolution of production control. At last, technology and the ascent of a gilded age have brought vintners to believe they’ve bested nature. It’s true if you don’t care about wine, if you’re content to bottle a soft drink as opposed to allowing wine the breathing space to develop personality. Basically this documentary demonstrates that these gentlemen hobbyists, now plaintively bourgeois about profit, welcome the new global fascism.

Old World Fascists
Of course it is no stretch to imagine that the Mondovino filmmakers are going to ask, how did your father or grandfather like Fascism under the Nazis? They point the question at an Italian family who date their wealth back 900 years as bankers.

Any European documentary delving into family histories will always ask particularly about the war years. In America it’s what did you do during the war Daddy? In Europe it’s about weathering the occupation. Most working class French want to tell you what they did in the Resistance. Rich people you don’t ask because of course they were collaborateurs.

Mondovino’s subjects are the perpetually wealthy, who don’t even register the affront. Of course their families thrived under Fascism, quelle betise to imagine it would be otherwise. How curious it is we are surprised they embrace it so again.

Such moments are the highlights of Mondovino, rich folk posing in elaborate foyers, plaintively matter of fact about Fascism.

One opulent reception room in Florence is packed with ancient paintings, among them a painting of the very room full of paintings, you imagine if you peered closely enough you would see the infinity of mirrors scheme, a Baroque era black velvet number. The Grande Dame mentions that Prince Charles inquired about that painting at breakfast.

Let me add, critics have held Jonathan Nossiter’s camera work to be unstable. Actually he was very easily distracted by momentously relevant tchotchkes and biographical details few commoners are granted audience to encounter.

Fascists in the New World
Mondovino allowed the Napa Valley entrepreneurs to hang themselves. Open mouth, insert vacuous blather, often racist. These nouveau riches landscaped new vineyard for themselves, praising the terrain like it was classic architecture, their aesthetic tributes could only reference the National Mall. That classic.

Over at Mondavi, talk fixated of expansion and conquest. The film’s main plot addressed the Mondavi’s ongoing acquisition of the world’s most treasured appelations. For the worse of course, because what do they know about wine but that it should all taste the same? Son Mondavi dreams of someday having a vineyard on the moon, for no other reason than he thought of it. Wouldn’t it be exciting, he asks, to be able to say: “hey, let’s open a bottle from the moon,” my paraphrase.

The issue of terroir, English readers, has entirely to do with terre which is French for “earth.” Terre with a capital T is “Earth.” Of course the earthbound distinction was lost on this Californian.

Yes, Mondavi is surely alone in pondering what earth, sun and elements would have feed his moon vines.

Most vile of all the New World vintners was a family outfit in Argentina. They sit on a spacious veranda and explain how every boy in the family is named for founding father, the original title holder. Their wealth goes back to the early Spanish settlers and they express the perennial colonizer’s lament, that Los Indios of the regions have no work ethic. Centuries ago the Spaniard had to devise cruel torments to drive their slave laborers to produce. It was an inefficient system to impose on the indigenous and transplanted tribes, unaccustomed to a hierarchical workforce supporting do-nothings at the top.

Globalization
Key to Mondavi’s quest for wine world domination, is a market that has standardized the consumer’s taste. No longer are customers hopping in their car for a Sunday drive, to stop by a neighboring chateau to sample a vintage take a case home. Today the global consumption of wine has meant having to market it without being able to taste it. For that consumers have come to follow the ratings of critics. It was inevitable of course, but Mondovino reveals how hilariously flawed and phony the system is.

Mondovino focuses on two celebrity tasters who make or break wines. Robert Parker and James Suckling. Let’s dispatch the latter quickly.

James Suckling
James Suckling made a niche for himself nurturing Italian wines and coined the term “Super Tuscan.” I didn’t know that, but Mondovino records Suckling attributing the phenomena to the ether before being made to admit that the meme was his own.

More hilarious was a hypothetical question posed to the critic after confessing in an unguarded moment that he might have been too generous with the rating he gave a friend’s wine. The friend, a wealthy vintner, was letting Suckling a villa, which meant he was also his landlord. Naturally Mondovino asked if a discount on the rent would move Suckling to consider a more favorable rating. Suckling took the bait, laughingly nodding, of course, his friend under his breath suggested in such case he could have the villa for free.

It’s not corruption, merely a gentleman’s game. Can we even assert that the ordinary consumer suffers? Taste is subjective. Suckling’s ultimate rating is of negligible consequence to wine drinkers, except to commerce.

Robert Parker
I’m sorry to be getting around to Parker’s scheme so late in this article, because he plays such a profound part in the homogenizing of world wine production. The mechanism is beyond the pale, but it’s simple. Parker is influential and has a distinctive appetite, he has a best friend who consults with vintners about how to make their wine to Parker’s taste. The result has been devastating. Vines that have for ages had their own distinctive gouts have now been McParkered. The consultant charges a large fee to monitor an increasing stable of wines, for the camera his preoccupation was “micro-oxygenate,” and after it’s bottled parker comes around and bestows the high marks. The more they pay, the higher the score.

Mondovino underscores this plot by filming a Burger King billboard as Parker drives past it, while he sings the praises of uniform quality. The filmmakers notice an FBI cap on Parker’s desk and make sure to keep it in the frame. Parker is quite candid and friendly in Mondovino, probably because he had no inkling they did not share his eagerness to see viniculture’s eccentricities ironed to a uniform flat.

When the film was released and Robert Parker emerged as enterprising accomplice to Mondavi’s villain, Parker was enraged. He wrote rant after rant against the film and its makers. I’m not sure he’s over it yet. I wanted to be sure to document what I thought was Mondovino’s most brilliant assault on the witless benefit the Parker-Mondavi venture think they’re bequeathing with their anschluss of world wine. It’s about the subjectivity of taste. Robert Parker’s.

A recurring motif of Mondovino’s interviews was a fascination with dogs. It’s cute, and often we give ourselves leave to believe we have learned something about the owner by just looking at their dog.

In one memorable scene, we’ve met a quite unassuming South American vintner who has only one hectar, but is none the less generous with his wine, his time and friendship. He has a black dog, and when the filmmaker asks his name, the vintner laughs such that the revelation is self-effacing. “Luther King” is his name, because, he tells us in Spanish, he’s “negro.” Mondovino’s dark hats are so distasteful, it’s important that the heroic characters aren’t too pearly clean.

All the asides with the dogs were entertaining in their own right, but could have served entirely to set up Robert Parker’s scene. We’re invited to Parkers home and immediately discover he has something for bulldogs.

Do you like bulldogs? Taste is of course subjective. Robert Parker and his wife love their bulldogs, two, and their home is festooned with Bulldogephemera, statuettes, paintings, the camera frame’s worth. Imagine a wall covered with watercolors and oil portraits of bulldogs as you consider the subjectivity of taste.

Then just as Parker is prompted to discuss that his nose is ensured for a million dollars, we discover that one of the dogs has become incontinent, and there’s the near unbearable dog flatulence from which not even conversation can escape. Imagine Robert Parker’s nose not ensured against that. The interview concludes with Parker rambling about something as a bulldog sits sneering on the carpet forcing the filmmaker to keep a safe distance, and so he focuses in close capturing the ugly, perhaps infirm, definitely defensive, unlikable mug.

The next time you chose a wine because it has a high Parker score, ask yourself how it integrates an atmosphere of dog.

Simon Wiesenthal Center makes best case against Israel colonial legitimacy

Posted on May 7, 2010 by Eric Verlo

Give Israel credit for answering their critics head on, but that is the Zionist hubris. Simon Wiesenthal is propagating the latest Hasbara crib sheet to counter the ten most threatening lies about Israel. We couldn’t have summarized the arguments better ourselves. One man’s “lies” are his victim’s desperate appeals to confound systemic myopic denial. Here it is in their own nutshell:

Israel was created by European guilt over the Nazi Holocaust. Why should Palestinians pay the price? … Had Israel withdrawn to its June 1967 borders, peace would have come long ago. … Israel is the main stumbling block to achieving a two-state solution. … Nuclear Israel, not Iran, is the greatest threat to peace and stability. … Israel is an apartheid state deserving of international boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns. … Plans to build 1,600 more homes in East Jerusalem prove Israel is “Judaizing” the Holy City. … Israeli policies endanger U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. … Israeli policies are the cause of worldwide anti-Semitism. … Israel, not Hamas, is responsible for the “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. … Goldstone was right when he charged that Israel was guilty of war crimes against civilians. … The only hope for peace is a single, binational state eliminating the Jewish State of Israel.

Even dissembled, the case weighs hard against Zionist mendacity.

OK, a tad capricious
To Wiesenthal’s credit, the arguments are loaded with a laudable reserve of disingenuity:

5,500 MORE HOMES have been zoned for East Jerusalem, not 1,600, (and yes, Jerusalem’s mayor has set quotas, a Jewish to non-Jewish target ratio to counter a higher Arab birthrate).

Israeli policies are the cause of [PROLIFERATION] of worldwide anti-Semitism,

The Gaza “humanitarian catastrophe” soft-pedals the critics’ real accusation: MASSACRE. Imagine referring to the Holocaust as befalling its victims with the ambivalence of a tsunami.

JUDGE Goldstone isn’t the only accuser who’s documented the criminality the world witnessed WITH ITS OWN EYES.

Apartheid legitimizers blink
Further demonstrating the disintegrating global support for a Jewish haven-state, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has all but dropped its cover as Holocaust-remembrance-sledgehammer to directly shore up the supposed public grant of legitimacy to Zionist colonialism.

Trying to turn the argument on Israel’s “de-ligitimizers” couldn’t be more out of touch.

While the US fights in expanding but downward spirals against the entropy of Pax Americana, Western public support for empire-building erodes for even the pretext of “globalization.” White Man’s Burden has smartened to Carbon Debt, missionary zeal evolved to indigenous and environmental protectionism. Religious crusades haven’t held water for centuries, but what an Auld Testament to Zionism’s xenophobic tenacity to posit the Jewish People as “chosen” to revive God-manifested destiny.

What part of “Apartheid is for Neanderthals” do Palestine’s neo- Afrikaners fail to understand? Even an 18th Century South African settler categorization gives the mid-twentieth century European transplants in Zion too much credit for pretended genealogical roots in the Middle East.

Only State Solution
Not very well concealed in Wiesenthal’s framing of the “Top Ten Lies” is a specious conceit formed by straw arguments three and ten, which presume the desirability of a “two-state solution” and/or a misguided hope for an inevitable “binational state.” Only in Wiesenthal’s rebuttal is there utterance of Israel’s true taboo –unmentionable because it will be self-fulfilling. The single state solution is dismissed with cavalier aplomb as “a non-starter.”

They desperately wish. On what basis do Zionists imbue themselves authority to trump international consensus? Hopefully it is not their nuclear arsenal. No other religious ideology, armed with nukes or without, asserts any permutation of divine refugee-status provenance to an autonomous “homeland.” Not even Tibet.

I expect sooner than the Zionists like –but then the self-defeatist arrogance may bely my presumption– the Simon Wiesenthal Center will be scrambling to bolster rationalizations against the only peaceful solution already on everyone’s mind and taxing our humanitarian patience: the single-state multi-theist modern egalitarian democracy.

Hasbara desperation
We reprint a near-complete representation of the SWC brochure below for our readers, if also to facilitate the identification of pro-Israel internet trolls by the tracts they are presently copy-and-pasting all over blog discussions. Who would have suspected that the resurgent wave of Zionist troll tripe was so transparently linked to official AIPAC and Wiesenthal Center press releases. We give the IDF Hasbara budget too much credit.

A recent IDF-merc commenter goaded us to “envy Israeli intellectual superiority.” I will admit it, I am in awe. Eagerly too. I know where it got Icarus.

Israel goes Titanic. Gotta love a good spectacle.

Appendix
Here then, courtesy of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the 2010 Top Ten Anti-Israel Lies, enjoy!

2010 TOP TEN
ANTI-ISRAEL LIES

Israel is under assault!
Here’s what you need to know.
Act now…

Lie No. 1: Israel was created by European guilt over the Nazi Holocaust. Why should Palestinians pay the price?

Three thousand years before the Holocaust, before there was a Roman Empire, Israel’s kings and prophets walked the streets of Jerusalem. The whole world knows that Isaiah did not speak his prophesies from Portugal, nor Jeremiah his lamentations from France. Revered by its people, Jerusalem is mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures 600 times, but not once in the Koran. Throughout the 2,000-year exile of the Jews, there was a continuous Jewish presence in the Holy Land.

Lie No. 2: Had Israel withdrawn to its June 1967 borders, peace would have come long ago.

Since 1967, Israel repeatedly has conceded “land for peace.” Following Egyptian President Sadat’s historic 1977 visit to Jerusalem, Israel withdrew from the vast Sinai Peninsula and has been at peace with Egypt ever since. But the Palestinian Authority has never fulfilled its promise to end propaganda attacks nor drop the Palestinian National Charter’s call for Israel’s destruction. In 2000, Prime Minister Barak offered Yasser Arafat full sovereignty more than 97 percent of the West Bank, a corridor to Gaza, and a capital in the Arab section of Jerusalem. Arafat said no.

Lie No. 3: Israel is the main stumbling block to achieving a two-state solution.

The Palestinians themselves are the only stumbling block to achieving a two-state solution. With whom should Israel negotiate? With President Abbas, who for four years has been barred by Hamas from visiting 1.5 million constituents in Gaza? With his Palestinian Authority, which continues to glorify terrorists and preaches hate in its educational system and the media? With Hamas, whose Iranian-backed leaders deny the Holocaust and use fanatical Jihadist rhetoric to call for Israel’s destruction?

Lie No. 4: Nuclear Israel, not Iran, is the greatest threat to peace and stability.

The United States and Europe can afford to wait to see what the Iranian regime does with its nuclear ambitions, but Israel cannot. Israel is on the front lines and remembers every day the price the Jewish people paid for not taking Hitler at his word. Israel is not prepared to sacrifice another 6 million Jews on the altar of the world’s indifference.

Lie No. 5: Israel is an apartheid state deserving of international boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns.

In fact, Israel is a democratic state. Its 20 percent Arab minority enjoys all the political, economic and religious rights and freedoms of citizenship, including electing members of their choice to the Knesset (Parliament).

Lie No. 6: Plans to build 1,600 more homes in East Jerusalem prove Israel is “Judaizing” the Holy City.

Ramat Shlomo was not about Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem but about a long established, heavily populated Jewish neighborhood in northern Jerusalem, where 250,000 Jews live (about the size of Newark, N.J.) — an area that will never be relinquished by Israel.

Lie No. 7: Israeli policies endanger U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would benefit everyone, including the United States. But an imposed return to what Abba Eban called “1967 Auschwitz borders” would endanger Israel’s survival and ultimately be disastrous for American interests and credibility in the world.

Lie No. 8: Israeli policies are the cause of worldwide anti-Semitism.

From the Inquisition to the pogroms, to the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis, history proves that Jew hatred existed on a global scale before the creation of the State of Israel. It would still exist in 2010 even if Israel had never been created. For example, one poll indicates that 40 percent of Europeans blame the recent global economic crisis on “Jews having too much economic power” — a canard that has nothing to do with Israel.

Lie No. 9: Israel, not Hamas, is responsible for the “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. Goldstone was right when he charged that Israel was guilty of war crimes against civilians.

The United Nations Human Rights Council is obsessed with false anti-Israel resolutions. It refuses to address grievous human rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and beyond. Faced with similar attacks, every U.N. member-state, including the United States and Canada, surely would have acted more aggressively than the Israel Defense Forces did in Gaza.

Lie No. 10: The only hope for peace is a single, binational state eliminating the Jewish State of Israel.

The one-state solution is a non-starter because it would eliminate the Jewish homeland. However, the current pressures on Israel are equally dangerous. In effect, the world is demanding that Israel, the size of New Jersey, shrink further by accepting a three-state solution: a P.A. state on the West Bank and a Hamas terrorist one in Gaza. All this as Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, stockpiles 50,000 rockets, threatening northern and central Israel’s main population centers. Current polls show that while most Israelis favor a two-state solution, most Palestinians continue to oppose it.

AIPAC student DC junkets paying off

Posted on May 2, 2010 by Eric Verlo

This year’s AIPAC conference targeted university student body officers in an effort to fend off BDS campaigns at campuses nationwide. Did the controversial strategy just pay off at UC Berkeley? When the student council voted 16 to 4 to divest, student body president Will Smelko vetoed the measure. Intense pressure from Israeli lobby groups were able to prevent overturning the veto.

AIPAC said they were going to do it, and they did it. Here’s what AIPAC’s Leadership Development Director Jonathan Kessler told DC conference attendees:

How are we going to beat back the anti-Israel divestment resolution at Berkeley? We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government and reverse the vote. That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.

Though the Berkeley bill SB118 proposed divestment from General Electric and United Technologies only, two military industries which profit from Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinians, it’s true perhaps that the measure opened the door to further BDS inroads to fight Israel Apartheid.

The divestment proposal had the backing of Archbishop Desmond Tutu among many activists. Against was the Israeli lobby. Students were warned that prospective Jewish students would avoid enrolling, etc. Can we imagine the suggestion was made that the current students would be denied jobs? There probably is a corporate future for “made” students who’ve shown their fealty to AIPAC.

Worth reprinting is the statement read by UCB Professor Judth Butler trying to warn the students against AIPAC’s disreputable coercion:

Let us begin with the assumption that it is very hard to hear the debate under consideration here. One hears someone saying something, and one fears that they are saying another thing. It is hard to trust words, or indeed to know what words actually mean. So that is a sign that there is a certain fear in the room, and also, a certain suspicion about the intentions that speakers have and a fear about the implications of both words and deeds. Of course, tonight you do not need a lecture on rhetoric from me, but perhaps, if you have a moment, it might be possible to pause and to consider reflectively what is actually at stake in this vote, and what is not. Let me introduce myself first as a Jewish faculty member here at Berkeley, on the advisory board of Jewish Voice for Peace, on the US executive committee of Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, a global organization, a member of the Russell Tribunal on Human Rights in Palestine, and a board member of the Freedom Theatre in Jenin. I am at work on a book which considers Jewish criticisms of state violence, Jewish views of co-habitation, and the importance of ‘remembrance’ in both Jewish and Palestinian philosophic and poetic traditions.

The first thing I want to say is that there is hardly a Jewish dinner table left in this country–or indeed in Europe and much of Israel–in which there is not enormous disagreement about the status of the occupation, Israeli military aggression and the future of Zionism, binationalism and citizenship in the lands called Israel and Palestine. There is no one Jewish voice, and in recent years, there are increasing differences among us, as is evident by the multiplication of Jewish groups that oppose the occupation and which actively criticize and oppose Israeli military policy and aggression. In the US and Israel alone these groups include: Jewish Voice for Peace, American Jews for a Just Peace, Jews Against the Occupation, Boycott from Within, New Profile, Anarchists Against the Wall, Women in Black, Who Profits?, Btselem, Zochrot, Black Laundry, Jews for a Free Palestine (Bay Area), No Time to Celebrate and more. The emergence of J Street was an important effort to establish an alternative voice to AIPAC, and though J street has opposed the bill you have before you, the younger generation of that very organization has actively contested the politics of its leadership. So even there you have splits, division and disagreement.

So if someone says that it offends “the Jews” to oppose the occupation, then you have to consider how many Jews are already against the occupation, and whether you want to be with them or against them. If someone says that “Jews” have one voice on this matter, you might consider whether there is something wrong with imagining Jews as a single force, with one view, undivided. It is not true. The sponsors of Monday evening’s round table at Hillel made sure not to include voices with which they disagree. And even now, as demonstrations in Israel increase in number and volume against the illegal seizure of Palestinian lands, we see a burgeoning coalition of those who seek to oppose unjust military rule, the illegal confiscation of lands, and who hold to the norms of international law even when nations refuse to honor those norms.

What I learned as a Jewish kid in my synagogue–which was no bastion of radicalism–was that it was imperative to speak out against social injustice. I was told to have the courage to speak out, and to speak strongly, even when people accuse you of breaking with the common understanding, even when they threaten to censor you or punish you. The worst injustice, I learned, was to remain silent in the face of criminal injustice. And this tradition of Jewish social ethics was crucial to the fights against Nazism, fascism and every form of discrimination, and it became especially important in the fight to establish the rights of refugees after the Second World War. Of course, there are no strict analogies between the Second World War and the contemporary situation, and there are no strict analogies between South Africa and Israel, but there are general frameworks for thinking about co-habitation, the right to live free of external military aggression, the rights of refugees, and these form the basis of many international laws that Jews and non-Jews have sought to embrace in order to live in a more just world, one that is more just not just for one nation or for another, but for all populations, regardless of nationality and citizenship. If some of us hope that Israel will comply with international law, it is precisely so that one people can live among other peoples in peace and in freedom. It does not de-legitimate Israel to ask for its compliance with international law. Indeed, compliance with international law is the best way to gain legitimacy, respect and an enduring place among the peoples of the world.

Of course, we could argue on what political forms Israel and Palestine must take in order for international law to be honored. But that is not the question that is before you this evening. We have lots of time to consider that question, and I invite you to join me to do that in a clear-minded way in the future. But consider this closely: the bill you have before you does not ask that you take a view on Israel. I know that it certainly seems like it does, since the discussion has been all about that. But it actually makes two points that are crucial to consider. The first is simply this: there are two companies that not only are invested in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and peoples, but who profit from that occupation, and which are sustained in part by funds invested by the University of California. They are General Electric and United Technologies. They produce aircraft designed to bomb and kill, and they have bombed and killed civilians, as has been amply demonstrated by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. You are being asked to divest funds from these two companies. You are NOT being asked to divest funds from every company that does business with Israel. And you are not being asked to resolve to divest funds from Israeli business or citizens on the basis of their citizenship or national belonging. You are being asked only to call for a divestment from specific companies that make military weapons that kill civilians. That is the bottom line.

If the newspapers or others seek to make inflammatory remarks and to say that this is an attack on Israel, or an attack on Jews, or an upsurge of anti-Semitism, or an act that displays insensitivity toward the feelings of some of our students, then there is really only one answer that you can provide, as I see it. Do we let ourselves be intimidated into not standing up for what is right? It is simply unethical for UC to invest in such companies when they profit from the killing of civilians under conditions of a sustained military occupation that is manifestly illegal according to international law. The killing of civilians is a war crime. By voting yes, you say that you do not want the funds of this university to be invested in war crimes, and that you hold to this principle regardless of who commits the war crime or against whom it is committed.

Of course, you should clearly ask whether you would apply the same standards to any other occupation or destructive military situation where war crimes occur. And I note that the bill before you is committed to developing a policy that would divest from all companies engaged in war crimes. In this way, it contains within it both a universal claim and a universalizing trajectory. It recommends explicitly “additional divestment policies to keep university investments out of companies aiding war crimes throughout the world, such as those taking place in Morocco, the Congo, and other places as determined by the resolutions of the United Nations and other leading human rights organizations.” Israel is not singled out. It is, if anything, the occupation that is singled out, and there are many Israelis who would tell you that Israel must be separated from its illegal occupation. This is clearly why the divestment call is selective: it does not call for divestment from any and every Israeli company; on the contrary, it calls for divestment from two corporations where the links to war crimes are well-documented.

Let this then be a precedent for a more robust policy of ethical investment that would be applied to any company in which UC invests. This is the beginning of a sequence, one that both sides to this dispute clearly want. Israel is not to be singled out as a nation to be boycotted–and let us note that Israel itself is not boycotted by this resolution. But neither is Israel’s occupation to be held exempt from international standards. If you want to say that the historical understanding of Israel’s genesis gives it an exceptional standing in the world, then you disagree with those early Zionist thinkers, Martin Buber and Judah Magnes among them, who thought that Israel must not only live in equality with other nations, but must also exemplify principles of equality and social justice in its actions and policies. There is nothing about the history of Israel or of the Jewish people that sanctions war crimes or asks us to suspend our judgment about war crimes in this instance. We can argue about the occupation at length, but I am not sure we can ever find a justification on the basis of international law for the deprivation of millions of people of their right to self-determination and their lack of protection against police and military harassment and destructiveness. But again, we can have that discussion, and we do not have to conclude it here in order to understand the specific choice that we face. You don’t have to give a final view on the occupation in order to agree that investing in companies that commit war crimes is absolutely wrong, and that in saying this, you join Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians and so many other peoples from diverse religious and secular traditions who believe that international governance, justice and peace demand compliance with international law and human rights and the opposition to war crimes. You say that you do not want our money going into bombs and helicopters and military materiel that destroys civilian life. You do not want it in this context, and you do not want it in any context.

Part of me wants to joke–where would international human rights be without the Jews! We helped to make those rights, at Nuremberg and again in Jerusalem, so what does it mean that there are those who tell you that it is insensitive to Jewishness to come out in favor of international law and human rights? It is a lie–and what a monstrous view of what it means to be Jewish. It disgraces the profound traditions of social justice that have emerged from the struggle against fascism and the struggles against racism; it effaces the tradition of ta-ayush, living together, the ethical relation to the non-Jew which is the substance of Jewish ethics, and it effaces the value that is given to life no matter the religion or race of those who live. You do not need to establish that the struggle against this occupation is the same as the historical struggle against apartheid to know that each struggle has its dignity and its absolute value, and that oppression in its myriad forms do not have to be absolutely identical to be equally wrong. For the record, the occupation and apartheid constitute two different versions of settler colonialism, but we do not need a full understanding of this convergence and divergence to settle the question before us today. Nothing in the bill before you depends on the seamless character of that analogy. In voting for this resolution, you stand with progressive Jews everywhere and with broad principles of social justice, which means, that you stand with those who wish to stand not just with their own kind but with all of humanity, and who do this, in part, both because of the religious and non-religious values they follow.

Lastly, let me say this. You may feel fear in voting for this resolution. I was frightened coming here this evening. You may fear that you will seem anti-Semitic, that you cannot handle the appearance of being insensitive to Israel’s needs for self-defense, insensitive to the history of Jewish suffering. Perhaps it is best to remember the words of Primo Levi who survived a brutal internment at Auschwitz when he had the courage to oppose the Israeli bombings of southern Lebanon in the early 1980s. He openly criticized Menachem Begin, who directed the bombing of civilian centers, and he received letters asking him whether he cared at all about the spilling of Jewish blood. He wrote:

I reply that the blood spilled pains me just as much as the blood spilled by all other human beings. But there are still harrowing letters. And I am tormented by them, because I know that Israel was founded by people like me, only less fortunate than me. Men with a number from Auschwitz tattooed on their arms, with no home nor homeland, escaping from the horrors of the Second World War who found in Israel a home and a homeland. I know all this. But I also know that this is Begin’s favourite defence. And I deny any validity to this defence.

As the Israeli historian Idith Zertal makes clear, do not use this most atrocious historical suffering to legitimate military destructiveness–it is a cruel and twisted use of the history of suffering to defend the affliction of suffering on others.

To struggle against fear in the name of social justice is part of a long and venerable Jewish tradition; it is non-nationalist, that is true, and it is committed not just to my freedom, but to all of our freedoms. So let us remember that there is no one Jew, not even one Israel, and that those who say that there are seek to intimidate or contain your powers of criticism. By voting for this resolution, you are entering a debate that is already underway, that is crucial for the materialization of justice, one which involves having the courage to speak out against injustice, something I learned as a young person, but something we each have to learn time and again. I understand that it is not easy to speak out in this way. But if you struggle against voicelessness to speak out for what is right, then you are in the middle of that struggle against oppression and for freedom, a struggle that knows that there is no freedom for one until there is freedom for all. There are those who will surely accuse you of hatred, but perhaps those accusations are the enactment of hatred. The point is not to enter that cycle of threat and fear and hatred–that is the hellish cycle of war itself. The point is to leave the discourse of war and to affirm what is right. You will not be alone. You will be speaking in unison with others, and you will, actually, be making a step toward the realization of peace–the principles of non-violence and co-habitation that alone can serve as the foundation of peace. You will have the support of a growing and dynamic movement, inter-generational and global, by speaking against the military destruction of innocent lives and against the corporate profit that depends on that destruction. You will stand with us, and we will most surely stand with you.

ACLU defends Freedom of Speech: that of yours, mine, Nazis or corporations

Posted on April 28, 2010 by Eric Verlo

COLORADO SPRINGS- The local Springs ACLU chapter is challenging the national office’s position on the recent Citizens United victory and I’m torn. I am as anti-corporate as the next rabid class-war insurgent, but the longstanding corporate personhood abomination is a separate abuse than the oppression of civil liberties. It’s clear that one impacts the other, but until we clarify who’s a “who,” the ACLU is determined to exclude no one from First Amendment protection. Make sense?

When and if the immortality advantages of corporate trusts can reigned in, the political power of the individual will be more secure. But an opposite Citizens United verdict would have left American individuals with limits on their speech. You don’t pass respiratory restrictions in Pigville just because the Big Bad Wolf is in town. You charge him with threatening illegal acts, etc, before you abridge the rights of all citizens in the name of security.

In social justice type affinity groups, I certainly believe there are times when the grassroots have to wag their dog gone somnolent. More often however, dissension generates from a malignant insurrection against the founding principles with which the provincial members have lost sight. My experience has been that local ACLU groups, Denver included, are exaggeratedly vigilant about asking “is this a civil liberties issue?” for fear of being seen to address a problem that has become politicized.

Defenders of the last administration for example were desperate to prevent activists from getting the support and sponsorship of established advocacy groups like the ACLU.

Lamentably, believe it or not, some ACLU self-obstructionists differentiate human rights abuses from civil liberties. They see the issue as “partisan.” Because critics of the Patriot Act are often Democrats, Republicans find themselves tasked with defending it. Likewise, illegal war, war crimes, rendition, illegal detention, etc, are also too partisan to address, even as they constitute affronts to the civil liberties of all.

It’s become very clear to me that both Denver and Colorado Springs chapters are dominated by conservative voices who restrict local ACLU activities to conducting public discussion groups, as opposed to speaking out about federal and local abuses which are usual targets of the national office.

The upcoming forum on Corporate Personhood, this Thursday night at Shove Chapel at Colorado College, is clearly outside the purview of civil liberties, but may have escaped our local ACLU’s conservative corporatists explicitly because it goes against the ACLU leadership.

To my mind however, the event will serve two goods. One, we take on corporations, and two our action alerts ACLU Washington about the rotten apples in our midst. Obstructionists are perhaps ever present, but headquarters might generate some guidelines about how to further root them out. A simple essay test about “what are civil liberties” would suffice for me. The next member who points to an ACLU talking point and avers “I don’t see how this is a civil liberties issue” gets the boot.

The most pathetic recurring argument is that the ACLU should only concern itself with the Civil Liberties of “Americans.” The National ACLU has of course argued for the rights of foreign nationals, even those living overseas who have been targets of extradition, as well as peoples of foreign lands under the jurisdiction of American authority; leased properties such as oversees bases for example, and entire nations we’ve invaded. Where should borders demarc free-of-liberties-zones?

The same critics of course show no qualms about US military forces subjugating other peoples in the name of “Freedom” without thought that our liberation of capitalist forces should come with some protections. Pax Americana minus the Americana Bill of Rights.

Challenged about its public support of the Citizens United case, the ACLU offered this unapologetic explanation:

“The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again.”

The fallout has been heated, but I’ve enjoyed the parallels drawn to the infamous occasion when the ACLU protected the right of Nazis to march in the predominantly Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie Illinois. Yes the ACLU will fight for NAMBLA, Nazis and corporations, and no one bats an eye at the affinity of the three.

The 2009 Amicus Brief which the ACLU filed in support of Citizens United is viewable online (PDF), here are the preface sections:

AMICUS CURIAEBRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT
ON SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTION

INTEREST OF AMICUS

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with more than 500,000 members dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality embodied in the Constitution and our nation’s civil rights laws.

For the past three decades, the ACLU has been deeply engaged in the effort to reconcile campaign finance legislation and First Amendment principles, from Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), where we represented our New York affiliate, to McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), where the ACLU was both co-counsel and plaintiff, to Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006), where we were lead counsel. In addition, the ACLU has appeared as amicus curiae in many of this Court’s campaign finance cases, including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (“WRTL”), 551 U.S. 449 (2007).

As framed by the Court’s reargument order, 2009 WL 1841614 (2009), this case presents fundamental questions concerning the constitutionally permissible scope of campaign finance regulation that this Court first confronted in Buckley and subsequently revisited in McConnell and WRTL. The proper resolution of that delicate balance remains an issue of substantial importance to the ACLU and its members.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The broad prohibition on “electioneering communications” set forth in § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2), violates the First Amendment, and the limiting construction adopted by this Court in WRTL is insufficient to save it. Accordingly, the Court should strike down § 203 as facially unconstitutional and overrule that portion of McConnell that holds otherwise.

This brief addresses only that question. It does not address the additional question raised by this Court’s reargument order: namely, whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), should be overruled. However, if Austin is overruled and the ban on express advocacy by corporations and unions is struck down, then the ban on “electioneering communications” in § 203 would necessarily fall as a consequence.

Even if Austin is not overruled, § 203 is unconstitutional precisely because it extends beyond the express advocacy at issue in Austin. The history of the McConnell litigation, as well as campaign finance litigation before and after McConnell, demonstrates that there is no precise or predictable way to determine whether or not political speech is the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy.

The decision in WRTL correctly recognized that the BCRA’s prophylactic ban on “electioneering communications” threatened speech that lies at the heart of the First Amendment, including genuine issue ads by nonpartisan organizations like the ACLU. But the reformulated ban crafted by this Court in WRTL continues to threaten core First Amendment speech. Its reliance on the hypothetical response of a reasonable listener still leaves speakers guessing about what speech is lawful and what speech is not. That uncertainty invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. It will also lead many speakers to self-censor rather than risk sanctions or undertake the expense of suing the FEC prior to speaking, especially since most suits will not be resolved until long after the speech is timely and relevant.

In short, § 203 was a poorly conceived effort to restrict political speech and should be struck down.

Israel racism legitimation day April 20

Posted on April 20, 2010 by Eric Verlo

Of course in America now every day is Holocaust Remembrance Day, not just April 20; as more US metropolises erect their own Holocaust museums, and the preponderance of our primary schools fit Holocaust-themed books into every reading or social studies program for every grade, every year. Let’s dedicate this April 20 to remembering what was the process that led western nations to conclude that the victimization of the Jewish people alone, not the genocide of the Gypsies, nor the larger Nazi eradication of the Slavs, merited compensation in the form of somebody else’s homeland. By coincidence the guilt we commemorate is somebody else’s too. How much more appropriate when someday we atone for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, in restitution awarding them of their own land, Israel, usurped for a imperial-tourism colony whose apartheid identity a civilized society can no longer condone.

Katyn Forest kills new Polish Mandarins

Posted on April 11, 2010 by Eric Verlo

At the height of the scramble for Poland which led to WWII, longtime nemesis Russia virtually decapitated Poland’s governing class. Nazi Germany brought Blitzkrieg and Genocide, but the Russians successfully dominated Poland because Stalin had executed its officers and intelligentsia in the Katyn Forest in 1940. It was to a 70th anniversary commemoration of the Katyn Massacre that the president of Poland, with much of his government, was flying when his plane crashed this week. Does is surprise any that Russia’s Vladimir Putin would take a lesson from the success of the first Katyn firing squads, in ridding his sensitive border regions this time of pro-Western administrators who were showing no qualms about hosting NATO missiles aimed at their Russian neighbor? Putin’s audacity might defy belief, but why is our media reticent to accuse the macho kingpin?

Ignoble WWII bombing of Coventry commemorated with coined slur, ours

Posted on March 14, 2010 by Eric Verlo

Here’s a bit of WWII distortion the History Channel is passing off as, um, history. Did you know that those dirty Krauts leveled the English city of Coventry so completely that they coined a word to celebrate it? Apparently that term was “Coventrated.” Oh, it’s a real verb alright — trouble is, it’s English. The British intelligence office seized upon the conjugated Coventriert to mean: subjected to heavy bombardment, and pretended the Huns were such bastards they commemorated the atrocity by mocking their victims in the Teutonic dictionary.

Also problematic, the barbaric Teutons failed to “coventrate” with equal efficacy anywhere else. But the Allies sure did. By night and by day, the UK and US bombers respectively “coventrated” the German and Hungarian homelands, with all the more ferocity because they were dishing the Nazis, haha, a taste of their own medicine.

The bombing of Coventry was tragedy enough, and might have been ameliorated had Churchill responded to the intelligence forewarning but risk betraying that the Brits were intercepting Germany’s secret ciphers. Allowing Coventry to fall victim was one of the high prices of keeping ULTRA a secret, but Hitler’s choice to bomb the historic city and its famed Cathedral was to provoke much enmity with the English public. Britain’s propaganda ministry was able to compound the resentment against the Germans for the devastation of Coventry by portraying the enemy as not just Philistine, but Bombast.

Of course more German cities suffered under the 24-hour US-UK tag-team bombing raids, many incurring orders of magnitude greater casualties than the 600 dead of Coventry. Notable among the Axis cities was the medieval capital of Dresden which possessed not one legitimate military target. No mention of those victims in the History Channel’s records of military misdeeds, meanwhile propagandist Newscorp property HarperCollins is weaving the coventriert detail for revisionist Dresden-deniers.

The stories of America’s firebombing of Japanese cities have already been suppressed. Apologists have long been at work justifying the use of atomic weapons against civilians in Hiroshima and Nagazaki. Where were the propagandists to conjugate Hiroshima?

America’s other unique bombing method would later be described minus geographical references, as simple carpet bombing.

The History Channel is part of the A&E network, co-owed by warmongers Disney, Hearst and NBC/GE. Their mention of “coventrate” came in a program about Lao Tsu’s Art of War, as his military edicts might have predicted, Nostradamus-like, the outcome of the Viet Nam War. Here’s an example of the program’s perspective:

The Vietcong lost the public support of many Vietnamese when they executed thousands of South Vietnamese under the employ of the US.

Meanwhile the American cause lost its public support when the US public caught sight of photographs of US war casualties.

Sound like a fair comparison? The Vietnamese weren’t demoralized by the millions killed in their midst, while the antiwar movement was not galvanized by the revelations of US atrocities? Right.

UN Climate Change Conference COP15 should call for coping, less hoping

Posted on December 6, 2009 by Eric Verlo

Yes, we know the theme. Ich bin ein Hopenhagener. With climate change about to engulf us, today we are all Hopenhageners. I think “COPE” might be a better derivation for the summit in Copenhagen than the ol’ Obama bait ‘n switch. Anyway, do they know it’s only “Copenhagen” in English? To the Danes –and yes, they call their land Danmark– their capital is København. The anglo-centrics who bring you the COP15 “Hopehagen” campaign are the International Advertising Association, in partnership with Coca-Cola, Siemens, BMW, Dupont, plus some who did not collaborate with the Nazis. The admen behind Product Obama know full well where HOPE got us in 2008. Will they be so cavalier about addressing climate CHANGE too?

Original Anti-Zionist jokes in Monty Python’s LIFE OF BRIAN remain cut out of Criterion special edition

Posted on November 29, 2009 by Eric Verlo

Think you know the saga of the deleted scenes from Monty Python’s LIFE OF BRIAN? Not if you trust Wikipedia. The 1979 comedy didn’t just take the mickey out of Jesus and the feuding Palestinian Liberation fronts, it poked fun at Zionists, as goose-stepping racists led by Eric Idle’s OTTO the NAZIRENE determined to promote Jewish racial purity, carve a Lebensraum from the “traditional Jewish areas of Samaria,” displace the Samaritans into internment camps, and plan an Anschluss of Jordan to “create a great Jewish state that will last a thousand years.” My, my, my. But the defamed parties had the last laugh. They acquired the studio with the rights to the film, obliterated the offending celluloid, reedited the video release, and have rewritten cinematic history.

Maybe you don’t care what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians. Did you know someone is messing with the oeuvre of Monty Python? We had the comedy sketches memorized in college. Who could have imagined the originals would be vulnerable to tampering?

I’m not sure this is an overreaction. Monty Python is not Shakespeare, what is? But it’s not Nicholas Sparks either. For a populist phenom I say Python rivals Swift. This is book burning, is what it is — a sinister effacing of creative work. In a recent British poll, Life of Brian was in contention for England’s greatest film comedy. But for your consideration, instead of a director’s cut, we’ve got a censor’s cut.

Here’s the lowdown in brief: three integral scenes of the theatrical release were removed from the video version. The third scene was recut to make up for the absence of the first two. And a key character was stricken from the credits.

When Criterion later released a collector’s edition, the missing sequences were included in the extras as “deleted scenes.” But these scenes were represented by mangled outtakes of the originals, from which key lines remain excised. Then an official narrative was fabricated to recount how the sequences had been removed from the original version to improve the flow, the crude outtakes testifying to why they didn’t make the cut.

But that’s all bullocks –and the niggling weak spot to this digital book burning is, ironically enough, that BOOKS were published in 1979 to accompany the film’s release: a mass-market paperback of the screenplay, and an oversized Monty Python Scrapbook.

The rewrite runs afoul too of anyone who remembers seeing the film in its first release.

Not My Tribe has suffered its own internal dissension over comparing Israel to the Nazis. Apparently it’s SO not done, not even Monty Python can get away with it.

You may have revisited the video many times, now the DVD, maybe you read about the scandals about the film’s release, maybe you memorized some of the Biggus Dickus dialog; are you curious that you missed the bits about Samaria, Jordan and purified Jewish blood?

When the Catholic church objects to a movie, it declares a boycott. Zionists take a more effective strategy. When pulling funding from the project doesn’t work, they buy the rights and delete the scenes. You’d think a film as celebrated as Life of Brian would be inviolate to culture vandals. And so far the desecration has escaped the legions of Monty Python fans. Wikipedia recounts how Otto’s scenes were deleted from the film, and thankfully resurfaced to be included as outtakes on the 2007 Criterion edition. But the account is untrue.

From restored out-takes we might surmise that Jewish objection were limited to the Star of David embellished as a swastika, but from the un-restored material it seems that the modern censors objected to Zionists depicted as determined to carve their own Lebensraum in Samariaby by means of Anschluss and concentration camps, for the sake of a third Jewish reich. And what have we now happening in the Occupied Territories which Israeli settlers insist on calling their Sumaria and Judea of biblical history, and what of the open air internment of the Palestinians in Gaza. Oh My Goodness.

The Criterion edition of Monty Python’s Life of Brian has some famously restored scenes, alleged to have been cut from the original version. They’re available again, and you can see them on Youtube. But it’s Poppycock. The scenes in question were actually removed from the video release, and “lost” by the studio which took over handmade films. The deleted scenes were actually out-takes of the originals. Fortunately, the screenplay published to accompany the 1979 release has the original lines, which vary quite curiously from what’s being peddled as the restored original. Yes, the deleted scenes have deleted scenes.

If you saw the 1979 film in the theater, you might remember Otto, the Hitleresque Zionist with the curiously non-German accent. Here is the original script made from the final take. The out-take restored as “deleted scenes” stray considerably from these lines. The lines in bold have simply been simply clipped.

BRIAN slips out through the back door and descends some steps into MANDY’S garden where he sits, head in hands.

Suddenly a voice assails him.

OTTO: Hail, Leader!

BRIAN: What?

OTTO: Oh, I– I’m so sorry. Have you seen the new Leader?

BRIAN: The what?

OTTO: The new Leader. Where is the new leader? I wish to hail him. Hail, Leader. See.

BRIAN: Oh. Who are you?

OTTO: My name. Is. Otto.

BRIAN: Oh.

OTTO: Yes. Otto. It’s time, you know. . .

BRIAN: What?

OTTO: . . . Time that we Jews racially purified ourselves.

BRIAN: Oh.

OTTO: He’s right you know. The new leader. We need more living room. We must move into the traditionally Jewish areas of Samaria.

BRIAN: What about the Samaritans?

OTTO: Well, we can put them in little camps. And after Samaria we must move into Jordan and create a great Jewish state that will last a thousand years.

BRIAN: Yes, I’m not sure, but I . . .

OTTO: Oh, I grow so impatient, you know. To see the Leader that has been promised our people for centuries. The Leader who will save Israel by ridding it of the scum of non-Jewish people, making it pure, no foreigners, no gypsies, no riff-raff.

BRIAN: Shh! Otto!

OTTO: What? The Leader? Hail Leader!

BRIAN: No, no. It’s dangerous.

OTTO: Oh, danger: There’s no danger. (flicks his fingers) Men!

A phalanx of armed, rather sinister, men appear from the shadows and fall in.

OTTO: Impressive, eh?

BRIAN: Yes.

OTTO: Yes, we are a thoroughly trained suicide squad.

BRIAN: Ah-hah.

OTTO: Oh yes, we can commit suicide within twenty seconds.

BRIAN: Twenty seconds?

OTTO: You don’t believe me?

BRIAN: Well . . .Yes . . .

OTTO: I think you question me.

BRIAN: No. No.

OTTO: I can see you do not believe me.

BRIAN: No, no. I do.

OTTO: Enough. I prove it to you. Squad.

SQUAD: Hail Leader.

OTTO: Co-mmit Suicide.

They all pull out their swords with military precision and plunge them into themselves in time, falling in a big heap on the ground. Dead.

OTTO: (with pride) See.

BRIAN: Yes.

OTTO: I think now you believe me. Yes?

BRIAN: Yes.

OTTO: I think now I prove it to you, huh?

BRIAN: Yes, you certainly did.

OTTO: All dead.

BRIAN: Yes.

OTTO: Not one living.

BRIAN: No.

OTTO: You see, they are all of them quite dead. See I kick this one. He’s dead. And this one’s dead, I tread on his head. And he’s dead. And he’s dead. All good Jewish boys, no foreigners. But they died a hero’s death and their names will live forever. Helmut . . . Johnny . . . the little guy . . . er . . . the other fat one . . . their names will be remembered . . . eventually . . . forever. So now I go. Hail Leader.

BRIAN: Wait Otto. You can’t just leave them all here.

OTTO: Why not–they’re all dead.

One oh the ‘corpses’ farts. There is a giggle.

OTTO: Wait a minute. There is somebody here who is not dead. There’s somebody here who is only pretending to be dead. Stand up, you.

One of the bodies stands up sheepishly. As he does so, he stands on someone else who quite clearly says ‘Ow.’

OTTO: Who said ‘ow’? You’re not dead either. Neither are you. Stand up, stand up, all of you. Oh, my heck, is there not even one dead?!

They have all stood up averting their eyes in shame.

HELMUT: No, sir. Not one.

ADOLF: We thought it was a practice, sir.

OTTO: Oh my cock! Tomorrow, as a punishment, you will all eat–pork sausages!

There is a horrified muttering at this suggestion. OTTO turns sharply to BRIAN.

OTTO: OK. Tell the Leader that we are ready to die for him the moment he gives the sign.

BRIAN: What sign?

OTTO: The sign that is the sign, that shall be the sign. Men, forward!

OTTO’S MEN march away singing their exciting song.

OTTO’S MEN’S SONG:
There’s a man we call our Leader.
He’s fine and strong and brave,
And we’ll follow him unquestioning
Towards an early grave. He-e gives us hope of sacrifice
And a chance to die in vain,
And if we’re one of the lucky ones,
We’ll live to die again.

BRIAN: Silly bugger.

A second scene involves Otto and his Nazirenes receiving the sign, as the crucifixion party departs the city gates.

JUDITH now is running through the crowded streets. She reaches some steps and climbs up onto a roof. Quickly, she opens a basket and releases a flock of pigeons.

A very STRANGE MAN is lying on a lonely hilltop. Suddenly he rouses himself, sits up and peers into the distance towards Jerusalem.

A flock of pigeons flies up against the sun.

Seeing this, the STRANGE MAN rouses himself and does an extremely odd but elaborate dance.

Further away, on an even lonelier hilltop, a pile of straw moves to reveal that it is in fact a MAN dressed in straw. He watches the STRANGE MAN’S dance closely.

STRAW LOOK-OUT: It is the sign!

Instantly OTTO appears, with all his men.

OTTO: The sign that is the sign?

LOOK-OUT: Yes!

OTTO: Men! Our time has come! Our leader calls! Men forward!

The MEN march into the wall and each other.

OTTO: Oh my cock.

Of course the omission of Otto’s gang created a problem for the film’s final scene, where his men repeat their self-sacrifice beneath the crosses. Here was the original sequence:

Suddenly PARVUS looks up. He has heard something.

OTTO and his MEN appear over the skyline.

BRIAN: Otto! (a new flicker of hope in his eyes)

OTTO: Men, charge!

They charge.

The ROMANS, seeing this formidable army bearing down on them, finger their swords rather nervously and then break and run away back towards the city gate.

BRIAN’S face lights up with renewed hope as he sees OTTO’S army advancing at the double. The army arrives under the cross, swords held aloft. The ROMANS have all run away.

OTTO: (to Brian) Leader! We salute you. Men! Die for your cause!

With immaculate precision they all run themselves through, including OTTO.

OTTO: You see. Every man a hero. They died for their country.

BRIAN: You silly sods.

For the re-edited video and subsequent DVD versions, audio voice-overs were added to explain Otto’s final charge. None of this was in the original.

–[A group of faux oriental-looking warriors come over a hill, led by their leader, King Otto. Care to venture a guess as to who they are? Yes, it’s…]

WORKER
The Judean People’s Front!

PARVUS
The Judean People’s Front!

OTTO
Forward all!

WORKERS
Look out! The Judean People’s Front!

–[The JPF stop in front of Brian’s cross.]

OTTO
Ve are the Judean People’s Front! Crack suicide squad. Suicide Squad! Attack!!!
–[drumroll]
–[They all ceremonially whip out their weapons, open a hatch in their armor, and proceed to kill themselves.]

OTTO
Ungggghhh… that showed ’em, huh?

BRIAN
You silly sods.

11/16
ADDENDUM:
Scan from Monty Python Scrapbook of Brian of Nazareth, (NY: Grosset & Dunlap, 1979) page 5: “Dramatis Personae, in order of appearance” lower ninth tenth of list.

Note Eric Idle as Otto, the Nazirene, evidently scrubbed from the revised credits too.

Who were the 1,415 victims in Gaza?

Posted on November 26, 2009 by Eric Verlo

Americans aren’t accustomed to seeing their adversaries as human. The victims of our wars remain faceless and nameless, and maybe as a consequence we accept that our military “doesn’t do body counts.” Not only do we minimize the number of civilians we kill, but their deaths are commodified as “collateral.” Our military proxy in the Middle East does the same. In last year’s attack on Gaza, Israel calculated its casualties in three digits. Those killed behind the confines of Gaza may be faceless to Americans and Israelis, but they leave behind loved ones and dependents, and of course, they had names.

The IDF dismiss the 1415 victims as Palestinian propaganda. But here are their names. Notice, it is not enough that the dead be identified, but each name is accompanied with their address, and location where the death can be verified. Not only must Palestinian civilians mourn their loved ones, they have to account for them.

This list is made available by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and commemorates “The Dead in the course of the Israeli recent military offensive on the Gaza strip between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009.”

The victims are listed in order of casualty, grouped by date. Each person has a number, for those counting in the West, as well as name, sex, age, vocation, home address, date of attack if different from date of death, location of attack if different from address, and designation as militant if not purely civilian. I can’t find fault with those Gazans who took up arms against an indiscriminate incursion into their homes and neighborhoods.

——————————————-
PALESTINIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
???????? ??????? ?????????? ??????????

DECEMBER 27, 20081
Mustafa Khader Saber Abu Ghanima
Male 16 Student
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza

2
Reziq Jamal Reziq al- Haddad
Male 21 Policeman
al-Sha’af / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

3
Ali Mohammed Jamil Abu Riala
Male 24 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

4
Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Badawi
Male 27 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Al-Mashtal Intelligence Outpost/ Gaza

5
Mahmoud Khalil Hassan Abu Harbeed
Male 31 Policeman
Martyr Bassil Naim Street/ Beit Hanoun
Al-Mashtal Intelligence Outpost/ Gaza

6
Fadia Jaber Jabr Hweij
Female 22 Student
Al-Tufah / Gaza

7
Mohammed Jaber Jabr Hweij
Male 19 Student
Al-Tufah / Gaza

8
Nu’aman Fadel Salman Hejji
Male 56 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Tal al-Hawa

9
Riyad Omar Murjan Radi
Male 24 Student
Yarmouk Street / Gaza
Al-Sena’a Street / Gaza

10
Mumtaz Mohammed Ramiz al-Banna
Male 37 Policeman
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

11
Ahmed Hamdi Youssef al-Dreimly
Male 26 Policeman
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Saraya Security Service Compound/ Gaza

12
Fares Isma’il Helmi al-‘Ashy
Male 28 Policeman
Remal/ Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

13
Naser Mahmoud Mas’oud Hammouda
Male 35
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Wa’ed Society for Prisoners / Gaza
Militant

14
Munir Amin Mass’oud Hammouda
Male 32
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Wa’ed Society for Prisoners / Gaza
Militant

15
Ahmed Adnan Hamdi Hammouda
Male 25
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Wa’ed Society for Prisoners / Gaza
Militant

16
Ibrahim Mahmoud Abdul Hafiz al-Farra
Male 23 Policeman
Khan Younis
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

17
Mohammed Abdul Karim Ramadan al- ‘Aklouk
Male 24 Policeman
Jabalyia / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

18
‘Ali Marwan ‘Ali Abu Rabi’a
Male 21 Student /UNRWA
Gaza Training college
Rimal/ Gaza
Al-Sena’a Street/ Gaza

19
Ra’ed Nazmi Mohammed Dughmosh
Male 36 Policeman
Dughmosh area / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

20
Munir Mansour Ahmed Esbeita
Male 25 Policeman
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

21
Deya’a Talal Kamel al- Habil
Male 22 Policeman
al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Near al-Katiba Mosque/ Gaza

22
Mayssara Hamed Mohammed Bulbul
Male 21 Policeman
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

23
Nazik Hassan Yasin Abu Raia
Female 28 Policewoman
Tal al-Za’atar area/ Northern Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

24
Khamis Mustafa Mahmoud Abu Ramadan
Male 52 Driver
Near Abu Iskandar Roundabout / Gaza
Near al-Shifa Hospital / Gaza

25
Mahmoud Mtaw’e Mahmoud al-Khaldi
Male 39 Policeman
Al -Jala’a Street / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

26
Mohammed Khamis
Male 27 Policeman
Gaza airport area / Al-‘Abbas Police Gaza
Hassan Habbush behind al-Quds international Hotel/ Gaza Station/ Gaza

27
Shadi Jawad Khalil Qweider
Male 24 Policeman
Al-Daraj / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

28
Jihad Ziyad Badawi al-Gharabli
Male 24 Policeman
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

29
Mohammed Khamis Mohammed Baker (Zughra)
Male 21 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Al-‘Abbas Police Station / Gaza

30
Ahmed Mohammed Nafez Abu Hadayed
Male 21 Policeman
Khan Younis
Presidential Compound / Gaza

31
Rafiq Musa Abu ‘Ujeirim
Male 30 Policeman
Khan Younis

32
Haneen Wa’el Dhaban
Female 15 Student
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza
Near Preventive Security HQ / Gaza

33
Adham Hamdy Al-‘Udeini
Male 19 Student/UNRWA Gaza Training College
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza
Al-Sena’a Street/ Gaza

34
Wafa’a Marwan ‘Ali al-Dsouqi
Female 18 Student/UNRWA Gaza Training College
Khan Younis
Al-Sena’a Street/ Gaza

35
‘Allam Nehru Jawdat al-Rayyes
Male 18 Student
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Al-Sena’a Street/ Gaza

36
Hisham Mohammed Shehada Seyam
Male 27
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Militant

37
Ehab Abdullah Mohammed Hamdan
Male 21 Policeman
Bir al-Na’aja / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

38
Na’im Reziq Hassan Jendeya
Male 27 Jobless
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza
Militant

39
Iyad Ziyad Fares Jaber
Male 32 Jobless
Al-Daraj / Gaza
Al-Tufah

40
Diab Rebhi Diab al-Haddad
Male 20 Policeman
Al-Tufah / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

41
Mohammed Tawfiq Mohammed al-Nemra
Male 22 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

42
Ziyad ‘Adel Mustafa al-Najjar
Male 24 Policeman
Khan Younis
Presidential Compound / Gaza

43
Sa’ad Mohammed ‘Antar Esleem
Male 28 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Al-Katiba Mosque/Gaza

44
Mohammed Ziyad Sadiq al-Nabih
Male 27 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

45
Hatem Khader Mohammed ‘Aiyad
Male 30 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

46
Nizar Ibrahim Mohammed al-Deiry
Male 34 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

47
Mohammed Baker Mohammed al-Nims
Male 31 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Near al-Katiba Mosque / Gaza

48
Mohammed Nabil Mohammed Barghouth
Male 28 Policeman
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
presidential compound / Gaza

49
Mahmoud Mohammed Hilmy al-‘Amarin
Male 28 Policeman
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

50
Muhannad Hussein Moussa Abu Draz
Male 28 Policeman
Abasan al-Kabira / Khan Younis
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Militant

51
‘Umar Baker Musa Shamaly
Male 23 Policeman
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

52
Abdul Kader Mohammed Abdul Kader Diab
Male 33 Policeman
Tal al- Hawa / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

53
Hamed Fou’ad Shehda Abu Yasin
Male 24 Policeman
Al-Twam area /’Amer housing project / near al-Mashtal Intelligence Outpost
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

54
Baha’a Zuheir ‘Adel al- Khaldi
Male 26 Policeman
Tal al-Za’atar area / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

55
Mahmoud Juma’a Mohammed al-Labban
Male 20 Policeman
Al-Naser / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

56
Yahya Ibrahim Abdul Jawad Diab
Male 30 Worker
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Wa’ed Society for Prisoners / Gaza
Militant

57
Yasmin Wa’el Dhaban
Female 17 Student
Tal al -Hawa / Gaza

58
Abdul Hamid Jamal Khaled al-Sawi
Male 15 Student
Al-Tufah / Gaza

59
Akram Mohammed Ahmed Abu Zriba
Male 32 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

60
Ramadan Ahmed Ibrahim Abu Kheir
Male 23 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

61
Adib Hassan Abdul ‘Aziz Abu Harb
Male 32 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp /Gaza
Al-’Abbas Police Station / Gaza

62
Ahmed Hani Ahmed Qannou’a
Male 24 Policeman
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

63
Salim Khalil al-Banna
Male 24 Policeman
Al-Naser District
Presidential Compound / Gaza

64
Tha’er Mohammed Hassan Madhi
Male 22 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

65
Mohammed Sa’adi Mohammed al-Qatati
Male 30 Driver
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

66
‘Aisha Suleiman Hammad Rafi’
Female 52 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

67
Hussam Sa’id Mohammed Seyam
Male 27 Policeman
Sheikh Radwan / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

68
Mohammed Ahmed Mahmoud al-Adgham
Male 25 Policeman
Sheikh Radwan / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

69
Fayez Mohammed Abed Eqteifan
Male 45 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

70
Hammam Mohammed Moussa Mohammed al-Najjar
Male 24 Policeman
Rimal / Gaza
Al-Mashtal Intelligence Outpost/ Gaza

71
Wisam Abdul Majid Ibrahim al- Quqa
Male 27 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

72
Farouq Fou’ad Mohammed Esleem
Male 21 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Al-Mashtal Intelligence Outpost/ Gaza

73
‘Imad Abdul Mu’in Abdullah al-Barbari
Male 22 Employee
Yarmouk Street / Gaza
Al-Nafaq Street / Gaza

74
Salah Mohammed Saleh al-Kheiry
Male 23 Policeman
Sheikh Radwan / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

75
Ahmed Mohammed Shreiteh al-Kurd
Male 35 Policeman
Beit Lahiya / near al-Mashtal Intelligence Outpost
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

76
Sabri Jebril Sabri al-Rafati
Male 26 Policeman
Al-Mashahra neighborhood / Gaza
Al-’Abbas Police Station / Gaza

77
Amjad Maher Ahmed Mushtaha
Male 28 Policeman
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

78
Mohammed Amin Mass’oud Hammouda
Male 25 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Wa’ed Society for Prisoners / Gaza
Militant

79
Belal Mohammed Hussein ‘Umar
Male 20 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

80
Bassam Issa Qasem al-‘Akkawi
Male 27 Policeman
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

81
Yahya Ibrahim Farouq al-Hayek
Male 13 Student
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza

82
Mohammed Talal Kamel al-Habil
Male 20 Student
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Near al- Katiba Mosque / Gaza

83
Abdul Rahman Nizar Zuhdi Shahato
Male 22 Policeman
Northern Rimal/ Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

84
Suhaib Fawzi Salman Abdul ‘Al
Male 28 Policeman
Yarmouk Street / near Yarmouk Mosque/ Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

85
Yousif Rafiq Mohammed al-Deiri
Male 33 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

86
Maher Isma’il Diab ‘Azzam
Male 37 Policeman
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Al-Katiba Mosque / Gaza

87
Rami Jihad Mohammed al-Salut
Male 27 Medical lab. Specialist/
Military Medical Services
Sheikh Radwan / Gaza
Near al-Shifa Hospital / Gaza

88
Mohammed Abdul Kader Mubarak Saleh
Male 26 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

89
Mohammed Abdul Wahhab Abdul Rahman ‘Aziz
Male 20 Policeman
Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

90
Yehia ‘Awni ‘Awad Muheisen
Male 30 Policeman
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

91
Hisham Nehru Jawdat al-Rayyes
Male 25 UNRWA
Gaza Training College\ Gaza
Al-Sena’a Street/ Gaza

92
Jamil Nasri Mohammed Abdul- ‘Al
Male 28 Policeman
Al Yarmouk Street/ Gaza
Ansar Security Service Compound

93
‘AliYahia Mohammed Banat
Male 31 Policeman
Al-Jala’a Street / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

94
Mansour Yaser Mohammed al-Turk
Male 29 Policeman
Rimal / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

95
Hussam Mohammed Hammad al-Majayda
Male 26 Policeman
Khan Younis
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

96
Fayez Fayeq Ahmed Abu al-Qumsan
Male 20 Policeman
Jabalyia / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

97
Walid Jabr Mohammed Abu Hein
Male 37 Policeman
Juhr al-Dik / Gaza
Saraya Security Service Compound/ Gaza

98
Naser Abdullah Sha’aban al-Gharra
Male 46 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

99
Mohammed ‘Adnan Salim ‘Attallah
Male 26 Policeman
Rimal/ Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

100
Tala’at Mukhlis Khalaf Basal
Male 19 Policeman
Al-Tufah / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

101
Sha’alan, Abdul Latif Khalil Abdul Salam
Male 33 Policeman
Al-Jala’a Street / Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

102
Majed Tawfiq Mohammed Mteir
Male 46 Policeman
Al-Naser / Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

103
‘Ammar Khamis ‘Umar al-Lad’a
Male 25 Policeman
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

104
Wa’el Mohammed Marzouq al-Sha’er
Male 24 Policeman
Khan Younis
Presidential Compound / Gaza

105
Mohammed Zuheir al-‘Aydi Abu Sha’aban
Male 20 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

106
Ibrahim Yousif Ahmed Nofal
Male 42 Policeman
Al-Naser / Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

107
Jaber Jabr Ibrahim Hweij
Male 51 Al-Tufah/ Gaza

108
Rami ‘Amer Deeb Abdul Halim
Male 18
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

109
Wa’el Samir ‘Ali al-Hawajri
Male 33 Policeman
Tal al-Za’atar area / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

110
Hisham Salim Abu ‘Ajwa
Male 48 Policeman
Al-Naser / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

111
Ala’a Fadel Mohmmed ‘Afana
Male 23 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Al-’Abbas Police Station / Gaza

112
Ra’afat Ahmed ‘Oda ‘Eqeilan
Male 32 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

113
Tawfiq Jabr Mohammed Yousif
Male 47 Policeman
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

114
Ahmed Abdul Majid Hussein Abu ‘Oda
Male 21 Policeman
Nuseirat / Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City/ Middle Gaza

115
Hassan Isma’il Hassan Abu Shanab
Male 26 Policeman
Sheikh Radwan / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

116
Abdul Rahman Ahmed Khamis aL-Shweiki
Male 22 Policeman
Al-Daraj / Gaza

117
Ra’afat Nabil Sha’aban Shameya
Male 28 Policeman
Sheikh Radwan / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

118
Amjad Kamel Abu Jazar
Male 26 Policeman
Khan Younis
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

119
Mansour Abdullah Sha’aban Al-Gharra
Male 42 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

120
Ra’ed Mohammed Mohammed Al-Najjar
Male 32 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

121
Nahiz Salim ‘Awwad Abu Namous
Male 20 Policeman
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

122
Basil Jihad Mohammed Dababish
Male 33 Policeman
Sheikh Radwan / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

123
‘Asim Ahmed Hassan al-Sha’er
Male 27 Policeman
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

124
Sami Tayseer al-Sayed al-Halabi
Male 27 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Al-Mashtal Intelligence Outpost/ Gaza

125
Mohammed Jamil ‘Ateya Abu Hajjaj
Male 42 Policeman
Khan Younis
Presidential Compound / Gaza

126
Mohammed Khaled Asa’ad Shuheibar
Male 22 Policeman
Yarmouk Street / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

127
Mohammed Jamil ‘Ateya Abu Juha
Male 43 Policeman
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

128
Abdul Salam Isma’il Mohammed Al-Reba’i
Male 49 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

129
Abdullah Munther Jawdat al-Rayyes
Male 20 Seller in computers shop
Al-Sabra / Gaza

130
Mohammed Mansour Abdul Karim Nayfa
Male 21 Policeman
Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

131
Na’im ‘Ashour Ahmed Al Ghifary
Male 36 Policeman
Al-Sahaba Street/ Al-Daraj / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

132
Mohammed Hafiz Mohammed al-Kharoubi
Male 22 Policeman
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

133
Mohammed Salah Hassan al-Sawaf
Male 28 Policeman
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Al-Kattiba area / Gaza

134
Mustafa Mohammed Mustafa al-Sabbagh
Male 20 Policeman
Al-Tufah / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

135
Sharaf Mohammed Abu Shammala
Male 22 Policeman
Khan Younis
Presidential Compound / Gaza

136
Ahmed Mohammed Jamil Ba’alousha
Male 21 Policeman
Yarmouk Street / Gaza
Al-Nafaq Street / Gaza

137
Yousif Fawzi Salman Abdul ‘Al
Male 19 Worker
Yarmouk Street / Gaza
Al-Mashtal Intelligence Outpost/ Gaza

138
Mohammed Subhi Isma’il Aal-Maqadma
Male 34 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

139
Baha’a Nahid Fawzi Sukeik
Male 28
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

140
Suheil Mohammed Naser Tanbura
Male 43 Policeman
Aslan Neighborhood/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

141
Abdul Samia’ Mohammed Abdullah Eal-Nashar
Male 35 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

142
Fayez Riyad Fayez al-Madhoun
Male 33 Policeman
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

143
Isma’il Ibrahim al- Ja’abari
Male 36 Policeman
Khan Younis
Presidential Compound / Gaza

144
Hisham Mohammed Ali Abu Sharar
Male 40 Policeman
Aa-Tufah / Gaza
Near al-Katiba Mosque / Gaza

145
Ahmed Abdul Kader Ibrahim al-Haddad
Male 27 Policeman
Aa-Tufah / Gaza
Ansar Security Service Compound / Gaza

146
Tamer Mohammed ‘Asafa
Male 28 Policeman
Deir Al-Balah – Albrook area / Middle of the Gaza Strip

147
Rabi’ Mahmoud al-Muzayan
Male 29 Policeman
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

148
Mohammed Salem Mohammed Abu ‘Abda
Male 29 Policeman
Block 7 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

149
Isma’il Mohammed Suleiman al-‘Awawda
Male 24 Policeman
Block 6/ al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

150
Samir ‘Ubeid ‘Ali al-‘Awawda
Male 30 Policeman
Block 6/ al-Bureij / Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City / Middle Gaza

151
‘Uday Abdul Hakim Rajab Mansi
Male 6 Student
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

152
kamilia Ra’afat al-Bardini
Female 13 Student
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza
Wadi al-Salqa Village / Middle Gaza

153
Ibrahim Abdul Salam Mohammed Abu al-Rous
Male 24 Policeman
Block 6 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

154
Wisam Ibrahim ‘Ayyash
Male 22 Policeman
Albrook / Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

155
‘Awwad Nafez ‘Awwad al-Qatshan
Male 24 Policeman
Maqbula area/ al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

156
Mohammed Yahya Mhanna
Male 21 Policeman
Al-Brook / Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

157
Suheib Mohammed ‘Asafa
Male 21 Policeman
Al-Brook / Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

158
Hakim Rajab Mansi
Male 32 Farmer /
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

159
Hassan Sa’adi Hamdan Abu ‘Arbas
Male 20 Policeman
Al-Brook / Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

160
‘Umar Sa’id ‘Umar al-Lahham
Male 22 Policeman
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

161
Ahmed Salah Ahmed al-Lahham
Male 23 Policeman
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

162
Shadi Mohammed Fayez ‘Ateya
Male 34 Policeman
Al-Sahaba Street/ Al-Daraj / Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

163
Yaser Mohammed Deeb al-Lahham
Male 32 Policeman
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

164
Wasim Ibrahim Hassan ‘Azara
Male 23 Policeman
Block 7/ al-Bureij / Middle Gaza
Abu Meddein Police Station

165
Anas Sbeih Abdullah Abu Nar
Male 23 Policeman
Al-Zahra’a City / Middle Gaza

166
Hussam Abdullah Ibrahim al-Sane’
Male 27 Policeman
Nuseirat New Refugee Camp / Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City/ Middle Gaza

167
‘Imad Abdul Hamid Mohammed Abu al-Haj
Male 38 Policeman
Al-Bahnasawi area/ Nuseirat Camp / Middle Gaza

168
Mohammed Mesbah Hussein Hamad
Male 23 Policeman
Nuseirat Refugee Camp 1 / Middle Gaza

169
Mohammed Isma’il Abed al-Ghamri
Male 23 Policeman
Block D/ al-Maghazi / Middle Gaza

170
Zaki Ibrahim Mohammed Dweik
Male 45 Policeman
Block 12 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

171
Ramzi Rajab Khader Tanjara
Male 26 Policeman
Block 6 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

172
Khaled Abdul Fattah Ali Abu Hasna
Male 42 Policeman
Block 3 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

173
Ibrahim Abdul Rahman Jbeil Zu’rub
Male 28 Worker in ex-settlements
Palestine Mosque /Zu’rub neighborhood / Khan Younis
ex-settlements/west of Younis Khan

174
Samer Heidar Hussein al-Qreinawi
Male 21 Policeman
Block 7 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City / Middle Gaza

175
Ahmed Mohammed Salama al-Qreinawi
Male 37 Policeman
Block 7 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

176
Tamer Heidar Hussein al-Qreinawi
Male 22 Policeman
Block 7 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

177
Majdi Nader Juma’a Jabr
Male 21 Policeman
Block 7 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

178
Ahmed Abdul Ghani, Khalil Kullab
Male 70 Jobless
Block 7 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

179
‘Issam Nabil Mohammed al-Gherbawi
Male 24 Policeman
Block 6 /al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

180
Usama Hassan Mohammed Abu al-Rish
Male 44 Worker
Block D /al-Maghazi / Middle Gaza
Al-Tufah

181
Ala’a Nasri Mohammed al-Ra’i
Male 30 Policeman
Nuseirat Refugee Camp 1 / Middle Gaza

182
Mohammed Ibrahim Abdul Rahman Abu ‘Amer
Male 22 Policeman
Near Nuseirat Martyrs Clinic/ Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

183
Abdullah Salim Aal-Lahham
Male 19 Policeman
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza
Militant
Militant

184
Abdul Rahman Nazmi Abdul Rahman Hamdan
Male 23 Policeman
Nuseirat / Middle Gaza
Abu Meddein Police Station / Middle Gaza

185
Mahmoud Hisham ‘Azmi Abu Dalal
Male 22 Policeman
Near Abu Dalal Supermarket/ Nuseirat / Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City/ Middle Gaza

186
‘Azmi Hisham ‘Azmi Abu Dalal
Male 26 Medic / Military Medical Services
Near Abu Dalal Supermarket/ Nuseirat / Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City/ Middle Gaza

187
Khaled Yousif Jabr Shahin
Male 40 Policeman
Nuseirat Refugee Camp 2 / Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City/ Middle Gaza

188
Abed Mohammed Salem al-Shaf’i
Male 24 Worker
Near al-Salama Petrol Station, near Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

189
Haitham Fadel Muhareb Hamdan
Male 28 Policeman
Abu Slim area near Nuseirat Refugee Camp 2/ Middle Gaza

190
Shadi Abdul Majid Abdul Jalil al-Sabakhi
Male 29 Policeman
Near Nuseirat Martyrs Clinic/ Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

191
Usama Abdul Fattah Khamis Fadel
Male 44 Jobless
Block 12 /al-Bureij / Middle Gaza
Abu Meddein Police Station

192
Ibrahim Hassan Ibrahim al-Jamal
Male 26 Policeman
Near Abu Meddein Police Station in Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

193
Yousif Mohammed Mahmoud Diab
Male 35 Policeman
Nuseirat Refugee camp 2 / Middle Gaza

194
Abdul Hakim Ahmed Abdul Fattah Abu Sharaf
Male 28 Policeman
Nuseirat Refugee camp 2 / Middle Gaza

195
Ala’a Addin Ibrahim Abdul Rahim al-Qatarawi
Male 22 Policeman
Nuseirat Refugee Camp 2/ Middle Gaza

196
Abdul Karim Sa’id Abdul Karim Wahba
Male 25 Policeman
Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

197
Mohammed Abdul Fattah Ahmed al-Qatarawi
Male 36 Policeman
Al-Kala’aboush area, behind the al-Qassam Mosque/ Nuseirat / Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City/ Middle Gaza

198
Tawfiq Ali Hassan al-fallit
Male 51 Employee
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

199
Mustafa Yousif Mustafa al-Khatib
Male 26 Policeman
Nuseirat Refugee Camp 2 / Middle Gaza

200
‘Umar Ahmed Hassan Abu Sa’id
Male 24 Policeman
East of al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

201
Mohammed Khalil Jarid Zu’rub
Male 26 Employee
Khan Younis
ex-settlement of Gadid/ southwest of Khan Younis

202
‘Adnan Ahmed al-Bheisi
Male 27 Policeman Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City/ Middle Gaza

203
Ahmed Jamal Ahmed Aal-Nuri
Male 29 Policeman
Block 7/al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza
Deir Al-Balah / Middle Gaza

204
Mohammed Hisham Salem Zahra
Male 21 Policeman
Block 7/al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

205
Abdullah Mohammed Ibrahim al-Ghaffari
Male 59 Jobless
Block 12/al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

206
Ahmed Reyad Mohammed al-Sinwar
Male 3
Behind the civil Defense service site/ al-Zahra City / Middle Gaza

207
Thiab Abed Issa Hamid
Male 50 Policeman
Bloc C/ Nuseirat / Middle Gaza
Abu Meddein Police Station / Middle Gaza

208
Nemer Ahmed Abdullah Amum
Male 101 Farmer
Block 4 / al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

209
Abdul Karim Isma’il ‘Ali Abu Jarbou’a
Male 46 Policeman
Al-Zawaida area / Middle Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

210
Rami Suleiman Ahmed Abu al-Sheikh
Male 26 Policeman
Behind schools compound area in al-Maghazi / Middle Gaza
Al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

211
Na’im, Aal-Sayed Abed Rabbu Mbit
Male 30 Policeman
Block 4/ al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

212
Mohammed ‘Awad Yousif ‘Awad
Male 27 Policeman
Block 3 / al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

213
Mohammed Ahmed Abdul Rahman Tabasha
Male 27 Policeman al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

214
Ghassan Mahmoud Isma’il Abu ‘Awwad
Male 32 Policeman
Block D in al-Maghazi / Middle Gaza
Presidential Compound / Gaza

215
Ashraf Hamada Mustafa Abu Qwiek
Male 21 Policeman
Block 4 / al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza
Deir Al-Balah / Middle Gaza

216
Ma’moun Mohammed Ahmed Aal-Sayed Msallam
Male 22 Policeman
Block 4 / al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

217
Mazen Mahmoud Abdul Aziz ‘Aleyan
Male 35 Policeman
Block 4 / al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra Police Station/ Middle Gaza

218
Hassan Atallah Mohammed Abdullah
Male 40 Worker
Tal al-Sultan / Rafah
Al-Mawasi area/ Rafah

219
‘Asem Mohammed Sa’id Abu Kmeil
Male 28 Policeman
AlMughraqa area/ Middle Gaza

220
Tala’at Mahmoud Salman Salman
Male 39 Worker
JabaliyaRefugee camp/ Northern Gaza
Civil Administration HQ/ Northern Gaza

221
Reziq Mahmoud Salman Salman
Male 24 Policeman
Block 5/ JabaliyaRefugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Force 17 Site/ Northern Gaza

222
Annan Saber Ayoub Ghalya
Male 25 Policeman
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Force 17 Site/ Northern Gaza

223
Ali Hassan Ahmed al-Mabhouh
Male 26 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Navy Site/ Northern Gaza

224
Yousif Tayseer Harb Sha’aban
Male 19 Student
Al-Juneina neighborhood / Rafah
Al-Talatini Street/ Gaza

225
Isma’il Jihad Isma’il Ghneim
Male 24 Policeman
JabaliyaRefugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
Force 17 Site/ Northern Gaza

226
Ni’ma Ali Ahmed al-Mghari
Female 18 Student in UNRWA Gaza Training School
Al-Bahar Street / Rafah
UNRWA Gaza Training College/ Gaza

227
‘Imran Isma’il Darwish al-Run
Male 24 Policeman
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Force 17 Site/ Northern Gaza

228
Baha’a Samir ‘Oda Abu Zuhri
Male 19 Student
‘Awad Building in al-Juneina neighborhood / Rafah
UNRWA Gaza Training College/ Gaza

229
Ahmed Samih Shehada al-Halabi
Male 19 Student in UNRWA Gaza Training School
Gaza Block M / Rafah
UNRWA Gaza Training College/ Gaza

230
Mohammed Mahmoud Hammad al-Najra
Male 46 Policeman
Al-Hashash area / Rafah
Nuseirat/ Middle Gaza

231
Salem Ahmed Salem Abu Shamla
Male 35 Jobless
Near the Police Station/ Al-Maghazi / Middle Gaza
Al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

232
Hashim Faris Hashim ‘Uweida
Male 33 Engineer
Khan Younis
Ex-Settlement of Gadid/ southwest of Khan Younis

233
Wa’el Abdul Karim Shehda al-Raqab
Male 32 Policeman
Bani Suheila village/ Khan Younis
Western Khan Younis Police Station/ Khan Younis

234
Ahmed Maher Ahmed Abu Mussa
Male 22 Policeman
Al-Amal neighborhood / Khan Younis
Western Khan Younis Police Station/ Khan Younis

235
Mahmoud Majid al-‘Abed Abu Tyour
Male 18 Student in UNRWA Gaza Training School
Block N / Rafah
UNRWA Gaza Training College/ Gaza

236
Ayman Hamed Ahmed Abu Ammuna
Male 38 Jobless
JabaliyaRefugee Camp / Norther Gaza
Civil Administration/ Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

237
Mohammed Na’im Shakshak
Male 23 Policeman
Khan Younis
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

238
‘Ammar ‘Oda Faraj Shamali
Male 23 Policeman
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

239
Ibrahim Shafiq Shabat
Male 24 Employee in Paltel company
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
Al-Amal neighborhood/ Northern Gaza

240
Ibrahim Shafiq Ali Abdul Hadi
Male 23 worker
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza

241
Ayman Hussein Ahmed Ahmed
Male 41 Employee in Paltel company
JabaliyaRefugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Near Civil Adminstration HQ/ Northern Gaza

242
Mahmoud Ahmed al-Najjar
Male 48 Employee in Paltel.
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Near Civil Adminstration HQ/ Northern Gaza

243
Ahmed Naser Ahmed Tbeil
Male 24 Policeman
JabaliyaRefugee Camp/ North Gaza
Force 17 Site/ Northern Gaza

244
Ali Abdul Rahim Mohammed ‘Awad
Male 24 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Force 17 Site/ Northern Gaza

245
‘Umar Salman Salim Darawsha
Male 27 Employee
Qarara village – Khan Younis
Ex-settlement of Gadid/ southwest of Khan Younis

246
Hussein Ahmed Hussein Daoud
Male 26 Policeman
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

247
Sarah Eid Ali al-Hawwajri
Female 57
Izbat Abed Rabbu / Northern Gaza
Civil Adminstration HQ/ Northern Gaza

248
Mahmoud Jamil Fakhri al-Khaldi
Male 26 Policeman
Tal al-Za’atar area /Jabalyia / Northern Gaza
Force 17 Site/ Northern Gaza

249
Mysara Mohammed Mohammed ‘Udwan
Female 48 Housewife
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
Al-Amal neighborhood/ Northern Gaza

250
Mahmoud Fou’ad Ahmed Abu Matar
Male 38 Policeman
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Navy Site/ Northern Gaza

251
Mohammed Aal-Desouqi Kamel Hammad Asaleya
Male 27 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Navy Site/ Northern Gaza

252
Yousif Ibrahim Mohammed Thary
Male 33 Policeman
Haifa Street / Northern Gaza
Force 17 Site/ Northern Gaza

253
Khalil, Mahmoud Abed Aal-Kurd
Male 49 Employee in PalTel.
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Near Civil Adminstration HQ/ Northern Gaza

254
Hassan Salem Hammed al-Rahhal
Male 50
Al-Maghazi / Middle Gaza
al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

255
Zeyad Daoud ‘Oda Abu ‘Eyada
Male 33 Policeman
Shaboura Refugee Camp / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

256
Heidar Mahmoud Mohammed Hassouna
Male 36 Policeman
Tal al-Sultan / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

257
Ayman Fou’ad Eid al-Nahhal
Male 22 Policeman
Khirbat al-‘Adas village / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

258
Hamdan Khamis Rabi’ Abu Nqeira
Male 32 Policeman
Shaboura Refugee Camp / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

259
Anas Fawzi Nafez Hamad
Male 23 Policeman
Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

260
Ahmed Abdullah Salem Al-Khatib
Male 26 Nurse in the Military Medical Services
Tal al-Sultan / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

261
Hamada Ahmed Msallam Abu Daqqa
Male 22 Policeman
Khan Younis
Internal Security HQ/ west of Khan Younis

262
Mohammed Fou’ad Abu Sabra
Male 19 Policeman
Al-Salam Street / Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

263
Qareeb ‘Umar ‘Abid
Male 32 Lawyer
Shaboura Refugee Camp / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

264
Shehada Abdul Rahman Hussein Kuffa
Male 50 Policeman
Block 2 / al-Maghazi / Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City/ Middle Gaza

265
Hatem Adnan Abu Sha’ira
Male 27 Policeman
Al-Zawaida area / Middle Gaza
Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

266
Nizar ‘Ateya Hassan Abu Salem
Male 35 Policeman
Nuseirat New Refugee Camp/ Middle Gaza
Al-Zahra City/ Middle Gaza

267
Abdullah Talal Ibrahim Aal-Sane’
Male 27 Policeman
Nuseirat New Camp / Middle Gaza
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

268
Arafat Faraj Allah Sleiman Faraj Allah
Male 37 Policeman
Nuseirat New Refugee Camp / Middle Gaza

269
Isma’il Ahmed Mohammed Salem (Hamdan)
Male 34 Policeman
Near the Ahli Club in Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

270
Yousif Ibrahim Mohammed Thabet
Male 18 Jobless
Gaza

271
Mohammed Yunis Abu Libda
Male 23 Policeman
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

272
Khaled Radwan Ali Inshasi
Male 24 Member of the al-Qassam Brigades
Al-Namsawi neighborhood/ Khan Younis
A site of the al-Qassam Brigades in Khan Youni

273
Suleiman Subhi Mohammed al-Ghariz
Male 50 Policeman
Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

274
Hamdan Qasim Abdullah Safi
Male 45 Employee
Khan Younis
Ex-settlement of Netser Hazani/ Khan Younis

275
Khaled Sami Tarraf al-Astal
Male 14 Student
Al-Satar/ Khan Younis
Ex-settlement of Netser Hazani/ Khan Younis

276
Shaker Fayez Salim al-Zeini
Male 60 Plumber
Khan Younis
Internal Security HQ/ Khan Younis

277
Nabil Ahmed Mahmoud al-Beiram
Male 43 Employee
Khan Younis
Ex-settlement of Gadid/ southwest of Khan Younis

278
Ibrahim Mohammed Ali Mahfouz
Male 46 Employee
Khan Younis
Ex-settlement of Gadid/ southwest of Khan Younis

279
(Mohammed Nour) Mohammed Reziq al- Fayoumi
Male 24 Policeman
Khan Younis
Western Khan Younis Police Sattion/ Khan Younis

280
Ahmed Rasmi Mohammed Abu Jazar
Male 16 Student
Al-Juneiena neighborhood/ Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

281
Mohammed Abdul Shafouq Mohammed al-Abadla
Male 40 Employee
Al-Mawasi / Khan Younis
Ex-settlement of Gadid/ southwest of Khan Younis

282
Mo’in Mahmoud Abdul Rahman Aal-Qen
Male 43 Worker
Tal al-Sultan / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

283
Salman Fahmi Hassan al-Astal
Male 30 Policeman
Khan Younis

284
Ibrahim Mohammed Ibrahim Abu Teir
Male 54 Worker
Abasan al-Kabira / Khan Younis

285
Nazir Khalil Hussain Aal-louka
Male 52 Imam
Tal al-Sultan / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

286
Haitham Yaser Ahmed al-Sha’er
Male 22 Policeman
Tal al-Sultan / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

287
Yaser Ahmed Mohammed al-Sha’er
Male 46 Policeman
Tal al-Sultan / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

288
Ihab Jaser Ahmed al-Sha’er
Male 32 Physician
Tal al-Sultan / Rafah
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

289
Ibrahim Abdul Rahman Jbeil Zu’rub
Male 28 Employee
Khan Younis
Ex-settlement of Gadid/ southwest of Khan Younis

290
Yousif Murshid Ahmed al-Najjar
Male 38 Employee
Khan Younis
Ex-settlement of Gadid/ southwest of Khan Younis

291
Mazen Ahmed Mohammed Matar
Male 15 Student
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

292
Salem Zeyad Mohammed al-Hallaq (Malalha)
Male 24 Jobless
Al-Daraj / Gaza
Al-‘Abbas Police Station/ Gaza

293
Mohammed Hussein Abdul Ra’ouf al-Mabhouh
Male 28 Policeman
Al-Sekka Street/ Tal al-Za’atar / Northern Gaza
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

294
Ihab Abdullah Mohammed Hamdan
Male 22 Policeman
Al-Twam / Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

295
Ali Abdul Ra’ouf Hassans Rihan
Male 27 Student
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Al-Soudaneya area/ Northern Gaza

296
Mohammed Na’im Mohammed Muharram
Male 29 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

297
Mohammed Subhi Abdul Rahman Dahlan
Male 34 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

298
Ahmed Abdul Latif Hussein Sa’ad Eddin
Male 24 Policeman
Sheikh Zayed Housing Area / Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

299
Ismail Ahmed Hassan Abu Hani
Male 18 Policeman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Al-Mashtal Intelligence Outpost/ Gaza

300
Hamid Ahmed Mohammed al-‘A’araj
Male 29 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

301
Abdul Hai Shafiq al-Dahshan
Male 40 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Al-Zahra Ciy/ Middle Gaza

302
Mohammed Fahmi Abdul Fattah Fahmi Tafesh
Male 22 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

303
Taysir Abdullah Mohammed Weshah
Male 23 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

304
Yahia Mohammed Shehda Sheikha
Male 24 Policeman
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Al-‘Abbas Police Station/ Gaza

305
Basem ‘Umar ‘Awad Jundeya
Male 43 Policeman
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Civil Administration HQ/ Gaza

306
Tareq Salah Diab Rahmi
Male 31 Policeman
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

307
Samer Ahmed Deeb Ahmed
Male 27 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

308
Belal Ghazi al-Raqab
Male 23 Policeman
Khan Younis
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

309
Amin Fou’ad Mohammed al-Zerbatli
Male 28 Policeman
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

310
Izz Addin Rafiq ‘Eleyan ‘Atallah
Male 20 Policeman
Yarmouk Street / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

311
Islam Mohammed Abdul Rahim al-Sahhar
Male 24 Policeman
Al-Karama area/ Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

312
Anwar Rafiq ‘Eleyan ‘Atallah
Male 30 Policeman
Yarmouk Street / Gaza
Al-Nafaq Street/ Gaza

313
Hisham Salama Salem Kawari’
Male 36 Policeman
Al-Naser / Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

314
Abdullah Isma’il Abdullah al-Zein
Male 49 Municipal officer
Opposite to Ministry of Interior /Al-Quds Street / Northern Gaza
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza

315
Khalil Ramadan Salim al-Muranakh
Male 38 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Force 17 Site/ al-Twam Area/ Northern Gaza

316
Yousif Mohammed al-Jallad
Male 34 Member of civil defense services
Khan Younis
Civil Defense HQ/ al-Zahra/ Middle of Gaza City.

317
Islam Mohammed Abdul Rahim al-Sahhar
Male 23 Policeman
‘Amer Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

318
Haitham Samir Tabasi
Male 28 Policeman
Khan Younis
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

319
Ayman Sa’ad Allah Faraj al-‘Ejla
Male 19 Policeman
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

320
Tamer Hassan Ali al-Akhras
Male 5
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

321
Mohammed Khalil Hassan Al Mukayad
Male 27 Policeman
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

322
Hassan Maher Hassan ‘Orouq
Male 23 Policeman
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

323
Huda Hani Husni Zuhd
Female 22 Policewoman
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

324
Mohammed Farid Abdul Fattah Abdul Nabi
Male 22 Policeman
Bir al-Na’aja area / Northern Gaza
Al-Twam Area/ Northern Gaza

325
Mohammed Suheil Mohammed Hassan
Male 28 Policeman
Block 6/ Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

326
Iyad Sha’aban Ibrahim al-Maqousi
Male 27 Policeman
Al-‘Amoudi neighborhood/ Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza

327
Munther Mohammed Ahmed Maniya
Male 32
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Wa’ed Society for Prisoners/ Gaza
Gaza Militant
Militant

328
Hamdi Issa Diab Hajjaj
Male 25 Dressmaker
Al-Sahaba Street/ Al-Daraj / Gaza
Al-Nafaq Street/ al-Daraj/ Gaza

329
Ashraf Zuheir Mahmoud al-Sharbasi
Male 33 Policeman
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

330
Wa’el Yahya Mohammed Abu Ni’ma
Male 32 Policeman
Jaffa Street / Gaza
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

331
Hisham Ibrahim Salman al-Msaddar
Male 26 Policeman
Al-Mssaddar Village/ Middle Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

332
Yaser Mohammed Hijazi al-Zarqa
Male 20 Policeman
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

333
Khaled Saleem Zu’rub
Male 43 Seller
Al-Batn al-Samin / Khan Younis
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

334
Abdul Azim ‘Adel al-Jadba
Male 27 Jobless
Al-Sha’af / Gaza
Al-Zahra Police Sattion/ Middle Gaza

DECEMBER 28, 2008

335
Mohammed Ali Salim Abu Khubeiza
Male 21 Driver
Block C/ Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

336
Ibrahim Akram Ibrahim Abu Daqqa
Male 15
Abasan al-Kabira / Khan Younis

337
Ramiz Talal Ahmed Hamdan
Male 28 Policeman
Near the Ahli Club in Nuseirat / Middle Gaza
27-Dec-08

338
Ebtehal Abdullah Tawfiq Keshko
Female 8 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

339
Ahmed Jamil Mahmoud al-Talouli
Male 28
Al-‘Alami Housing Project/ Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza
27-Dec-08
Near the Civil Administration HQ/ Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

340
Ahmed Fou’ad Mahmoud al-‘Askari
Male 22 Policeman
Tal al-Za’atar / Northern Gaza
Near the Civil Defense HQ/ Northern Gaza

341
Mohammed Akram Ibrahim Abu Daqqa
Male 14 Student
Abasan al-Kabira / Khan Younis

342
Refa’t Salim ‘Ashur Sa’ada
Male 34 Policeman
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza

343
Mohammed Ahmed Helmi Jarada
Male 18 Policeman
Al-Daraj / Gaza
27-Dec-08
Al-‘Abbas Police Station/ Gaza

344
Ahmed Abdul Latif Hussein Sa’ad Eddin
Male 24 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Presidential Compound/ Gaza

345
Abdullah Isma’il Jneid
Male 45
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza

346
Maysa’a Mounir Yahia Keshko
Female 22
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

347
Mustafa Kamal Ibrahim al-Hattab
Male 20 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

348
Younis Jamil Farhood Abu Khubeiza
Male 20 Student
Block 2 in Nuseirat / Middle Gaza

349
Mohammed Nafez Sha’aban Mheisen
Male 34 Policeman
Sheja’eya/ Gaza 28-Dec-08 27-Dec-08
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

350
Farid Mohammed al-Waleedi
Male 32 Jobless
Khan Younis

351
Tamer Saleh Abdullah al-Gherbawi
Male 20 Student
Block 5 / Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

352
‘Usama Mahmoud Salim Dardas
Male 35 Jobless
Khan Younis
Al-‘Abbas Police Station/ Gaza

353
Nabil Mahmoud Mohammed Abu Ti’eima
Male 16 Student
Khan Younis
East of Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

354
Ahmed Asa’ad Abdul Karim Fayyad
Male 22
Khan Younis
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis
Militant
Militant

355
Fayez Husni ‘Atta Ja’arour
Male 26 Policeman
Al-Jawhara Tower/ Gaza
Saraya Security Service Compound/ Gaza

356
Khalil Tayseer Khalil ‘Uweida
Male 34 Worker
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Near the al-Shifa Hospital/ Gaza

357
Tahreer Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha
Female 17 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

358
Samar Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha
Female 6 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

359
Dina Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha
Female 7 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

360
Akram Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha
Female 14
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

361
Jawaher Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha
Female 8 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

362
Khaled Khaled Ahmed al-Huwari
Male 18 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

DECEMBER 29, 2008

363
Zeyad al-‘Abed Ahmed Abu Teir
Male 32 Nurse
Abasan al-Kabira / Khan Younis
Militant
Militant

364
Ma’ather Mohammed Zneid
Female 23 UNRWA teacher
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis

365
‘Atwa ‘Awad ‘Oda Abu Mdeif
Male 70
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis

366
Ashraf Sayed Khamis al-Abdul Rahman
Male 28 Jobless
Dabbagh neighborhood / Jabaliya / Northern Gaza /
Zemmu Roundabout/ Northern Gaza
Northern Militant
Militant

367
Ahmed Yousif Ibrahim Khella
Male 18 Student
Al-Saftawi area / Northern Gaza Strip
Zemmu Roundabout/ Northern Gaza

368
Mohammed Basil Mahmoud Madi
Male 17 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Zemmu Roundabout/ Northern Gaza

369
Mohammed Mohy Addin Ahmed al-Madhoun
Male 48 Worker
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

370
Mohammed Jalal Shehda Abu Teir
Male 21 Jobless
Abasan al-Kabira / Khan Younis
Militant
Militant

371
Yaser al-‘Abed Ahmed Abu Teir
Male 32 Municipal officer
Abasan al-Kabira / Khan Younis
Militant
Militant

372
Mu’ath Yaser al-‘Abed Abu Teir
Male 6 Student
Abasan al-Kabira / Khan Younis

373
Mohammed Abdul ‘Aziz Khalil al-Farra
Male 23 Policeman
Abasan al-Kabira / Khan Younis
Militant
Militant

374
Mohammed Zeyad Mahmoud al-‘Absi
Male 14 Student
Yebna Refugee camp / Rafah

375
Rami Sa’adi Deeb Ghabayen
Male 23 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Zemmu Roundabout/ Northern Gaza

376
‘Imad Ahmed Abdullah Sammour
Male 34 Owner of metal workshop
‘Amer Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Zemmu Roundabout/ Northern Gaza

377
Faten Abdul ‘Aziz Zneid
Female 31 Housewife
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis

378
Sidqi Zeyad Mahmoud al-‘Absi
Male 4
Yebna Refugee Camp / Rafah

379
Mahmoud Nabil Deeb Ghabayen
Male 13 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Zemmu Roundabout/ Northern Gaza

380
Suheil Nawwaf al-Ta’aban
Male 35 Worker
Al-Zawaida / Middle Gaza
29-Dec-08 27-Dec-08
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza

381
Shadi Yousif Ramadan Ghabin
Male 14 Student
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

382
Wisam Akram Rabi’ Eid
Male 12 Student
Opposite to Ministry of Interior/ Al-Quds Street / Northern Gaza
Zemmu Roundabout/ Northern Gaza

383
Deya’a ‘Aref Farhood Abu Khubeiza
Male 15 Student
Block C in Nuseirat / Middle Gaza
28-Dec-08

384
‘Imad Jamal Shehda Abu Khater
Male 15 Student
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Zemmu Roundabout/ Northern Gaza

385
Khalil Ibrahim Jaber Abu Nadi
Male 69 Jobless
Al-Saftawi area / Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

386
Ahmed Zeyad Mahmoud al-‘Absi
Male 12 Student
Yebna Refugee Camp / Rafah

DECEMBER 30, 2008

387
Ayman Yousif Khalil al-Majayda
Male 45 Cook
Khan Younis 30-Dec-08 27-Dec-08
A site of the al-Qassam Brigades in Khan Younis

388
Mohammed Yousif Abdullah Hassanein
Male 34 Worker
Al-Sourani mountain/ al-Sha’af / Gaza
Al-Zahra City/ Middle Gaza

389
Tawfiq Reyad ‘Uthman Qannan
Male 22
Al-Sahaba Street/ Al-Daraj / Gaza
Al-Rayes Mountain/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

390
Walid Mohammed Suleiman Jabr
Male 20 Worker
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
28-Dec-08
Border strip/ Rafah Gaza

391
Isma’il ‘Uleiwa al- ‘Abed al-Qirem
Male 43 Jobless
Al-Sha’af / Gaza

392
Lama Talal Shehda Hamdan
Female 4
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza

393
Yahya Mohammed Suleiman Abu Nemer
Male 45 Guard
Khan Younis Refugee Camp / Khan Younis

394
Mohammed ‘Ateya Hassan Kharoof
Male 55 Worker
Abu Salim area in Nuseirat / Middle Gaza
27-Dec-08

395
Mohammed Majed Ibrahim Ka’abar
Male 17 Student
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Zemmu Roundabout/ Northern Gaza

396
Haya Talal Shehda Hamdan
Female 12 Student
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
Al-Rayes Mountain/ Gaza Northern

397
Amin Salem Darwish Al ‘Udeini
Male 24 Jobless
Deir al-Balah / Middle Gaza
Militant
Militant

398
Hussein Na’im Hussein ‘Abbas
Male 33 Policeman
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

DECEMBER 31, 2008

399
Mohammed Sa’id Mohammed Abu Hassira
Male 19 Medic / Military Medical Services
Al-Daraj / Gaza
Al-Rayes Mountain/ Gaza

400
Fatma Abu Jubah Faraj ‘Alloush
Female 63 Housewife
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza

401
Ihab ‘Umar Khalil al-Madhoun
Male 33 Physician / Military Medical Services
Al-Daraj / Gaza
Al-Rayes Mountain/ Gaza

402
Isma’il Talal Shehda Hamdan
Male 9 Student
Al-Rayes Mountain/ Gaza
30-Dec-08
Al-Rayes Mountain/ Gaza

403
Amin Saleh Ahmed Shabet
Male 71 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

404
Sha’aban ‘Adel Hamed Hanif
Male 16 Student in UNRWA Gaza Training School
Al-Juneina neighborhood / Rafah
27-Dec-08
UNRWA Gaza Training School/ Gaza

405
Tareq Yaser Mohammed ‘Afana
Male 16 Student
Jabalyia Refugee camp /Northern Gaza

406
Ali Zuheir Mahmoud al-Houbi
Male 21 Policeman
Al-Shaboura Refugee Camp / Rafah
Al-Najma Park

407
Iman Hassan Mahmoud Abu ‘Arida
Female 34 Housewife
Al-Shaboura Refugee Camp / Rafah
Al-Najma Park

408
Mohammed Isma’il ‘Abed Abu Daqqa
Male 20 Student
Bani Sheila / Khan Younis

409
Mahmoud Majed Mahmoud Abu Nahla
Male 16 Student
Rafah 31-Dec-08 27-Dec-08
Rafah Police Station/ Rafah

410
Nafez Kamal Abdul Jawad Abu Sabet
Male 24 Worker
Bani Sheila / Khan Younis

JANUARY 1, 2009

411
Mohammed Hussam Radwan ‘Eleyan
Male 17 Electrician
Al-Sawarha area / Middle Gaza

412
Nizar Abdul Kader Mohammed Rayan
Male 50 University Professor
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

413
‘Aisha Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan
Female 2
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

414
Zeinab Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan
Female 9 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

415
Ghassan Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan
Male 16 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

416
Jamil Ali Mohammed al-Dardasawi
Male 28 Worker
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Militant
Militant

417
Nawal Isma’il Rayan
Female 40 Housewife
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

418
‘Usama Ibn Zeid Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan
Male 3
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

419
Bashir Isma’il Sha’aban ‘Ubeid
Male 47 Worker
Sheja’eya / Gaza

420
‘Oyoun Jihad Yousif al- Nasla
Female 16 Student
Al-Nada Apartment Buildings/ Izbat Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza

421
Rim Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan
Female 5
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

422
Shehda Hamdan Hussein Abu Tilekh
Male 50 Jobless
Nuseirat Refugee camp 2/ Middle Gaza
31-Dec-08

423
Halima Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan
Female 5
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

424
Hussein Sa’id Abdullah al-Neder
Male 20 Student
Opposite to Abu Shbak Petrol Station/ Jaffa Street / North
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

425
Al-mo’iz Lideen Allah Jihad al-Nasla
Male 3
Al-Nada Apartment Buildings/ Northern Gaza

426
Mahmoud Mustafa Darwish ‘Ashour
Male 22
Block 3/ al-Bureij / Middle Gaza
Militant
Militant

427
Maryam Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan
Female 10 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

428
Abdul Kader Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan
Male 12 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

429
Aya Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan
Female 12 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

430
Sherine Sa’id Rayan
Female 25
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

431
Iman Khalil Rayan
Female 45
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

432
Fatma Salah Isma’il Salah
Female 42 Housewife
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

433
Abdul Rahman Nizar Abdul Qader Rayyan
Male 6 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

434
Mohammed Maher Abu Sweireh
Male 16 Student
Al-Sawarha area / Middle Gaza
18-Jan-09

435
Asa’ad Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan
Male 2
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

436
Heyam Abdul Rahman Rayan
Female 46 Housewife
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

JANUARY 2, 2009

437
Ahmed Diab Nemer Ja’arour
Male 24 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

438
Reda Khalil Hassan Ali
Female 53 Jobless
Khan Younis
Netzarim Roundabout/ Gaza

439
Wa’el Yousif Matar Abu Jarad
Male 21 Worker
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

440
Krestin Wadi’ Estandi al-Turk
Female 15 Student
Al-Sahaba area / Gaza
Al-Daraj

441
Belal Suheil Deeb Ghabayen
Male 19 University student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
29-Dec-08
Zemmu Roundabout/ Northern Gaza

442
Na’el Hassan Matar Ramadan (Shoha)
Male 28
Beit Lahia Housing Project / Northern Gaza
East of Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

443
Hamada Ibrahim Ali Msabeh
Male 15 Student
Sheja’eya / Gaza

444
Mohammed Iyad Abed Rabbu al-Astal
Male 12 Student
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis

445
Tahani Kamal Abu ‘Ayesh
Female 24
Wadi Gaza Village / Juhr al-Dik / Middle Gaza

446
Sami Ibrahim Ibrahim Lubbad
Male 29 Teacher
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Sheikh Zayed Housing City/ Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

447
Halima Mohammed Mohammed Seyam
Female 77 Jobless
Izbat Abed Rabbu / Northern Gaza

448
Nafez Mohammed Issa al-Mtawaq
Male 49 Worker
Gaza old Street / Northern Gaza
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza

449
Abed Rabbu Iyad Abed Rabbu al-Astal
Male 8 Student
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis

450
Fadi Naser Mussa Shabat
Male 24 University student
Al-Amal neighborhood / Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
01-Jan-09

451
‘Oda Hammad ‘Oda Abu al-Fita
Male 34 Civil defense member
Al-Satar Village/ Khan Younis
27-Dec-08
Al-Satar al-Gharbi Village/ Khan Younis

452
Abdul Sattar Walid Abdul Rahim al-Astal
Male 10 Student
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis

453
Majed Khalil Mohammed al-Bardawil
Male 29 Driver
Nuseirat New Camp/ Middle Gaza

JANUARY 3, 2009

454
Ahmed Isma’il Mousa al-Silawi
Male 21 Worker
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

455
Rajeh Nahed Rajeh Zyada
Male 18 Jobless
Al-‘Alami Housing Project/ Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

456
Hani Mohammed Moussa al-Silawi
Male 7 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

457
Hamza ‘Awni Mohammed al-Shaghnoubi
Male 22
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

458
‘Umar Abdul Hafez Mousa al-Silawi
Male 35 Journalist in al-Aqsa Satallite channel
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

459
Ra’ed Abdul Rahman Mohammed al-Msamha
Male 21
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

460
Ahmed Asa’ad Tbeil
Male 16
Beit Lahia Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

461
Akram Faris Jaber al-Ghoul
Male 47 Employee
Al-Karama Apartment Buildings/ Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Al-Seyafa area/ Northern Gaza

462
Sa’id Salah Sa’id Battah
Male 23 Employee in Ministry of Interior
Beit Lahia Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

463
Sharif Abdul Mu’ti Suleiman al-Rmeilat
Male 16 Student
Al-Shuka Village / Rafah

464
Salem Mohammed Selmi Abu Qleiq
Male 25 Guard
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
American School / Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

465
Sujood Hamdi Juma’a al-Dardasawi
Female 14 Student
Sheja’eya / Gaza

466
Sabrin Mohammed ‘Azara Abu Samaha
Female 18 Student
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

467
Mohammed Mousa Isma’il al-Silawi
Male 12 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

468
Mahmoud ‘Adnan Mahmoud Abu Ma’arouf
Male 24 Policeman
Al-Sekka area/ al-Satar al-Gharbi Village/ Khan Younis

469
Shadi ‘Ayesh Hussein al-Shorbaji
Male 27
Al-Sekka area/ al-Satar al-Gharbi Village/ Khan Younis
Militant
Militant

470
‘Awatef Salman Salama Abu Khusa
Female 43 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

471
Belal Abdul Karim Ali al-Haj Ali
Male 21
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Al-‘Atatra /Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

472
Mo’men Mousa Mohammed al-khuzundar
Male 22 Worker
Al-Daraj / Gaza
Al-Rayes Mountain/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

473
‘Ata Samir ‘Ata Bhar
Male 23 Employee
Al-Sha’af/Gaza
Militant
Militant

474
Salah Na’im Ahmed Shaldan
Male 22 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

475
Hisham Hamdan al-‘Abed al-Fayoumi
Male 35 Jobless
Al-Sha’af / Gaza

476
Yousif ‘Uthman Mustafa Abu Hassanein
Male 36 Worker
Opposite to Care Int. / Rafah
Yebna Refugee Camp/ Rafah

477
Mohammed Nahed Ali Abed Rabbu
Male 22 Student
Izbat Abed Rabbu / Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

478
Muhannad Ibrahim ‘Ata al-Tannani
Male 21 University student
Beit Lahiya Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

479
Mamdouh ‘Umar Mousa al-Jammal
Male 36 Jobless
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

480
Mahmoud Salah Ahmed al-Ghoul
Male 18 Student
Sheikh Radwan / Gaza
Al-Seyafa area/ Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

481
Eyad Ahmed Mohammed Abu Khousa
Male 36
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

482
Baha’a Bassam Hassan al-Ashkar
Male 19 University student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp /
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

483
Abdul Rahman Mohammed Qteifan al-Msamha
Male 47
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

484
Ibrahim Mousa Issa al-Silawi
Male 45 Employee
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

485
Hassan Nasim ‘Amer Hijo
Male 16
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

JANUARY 4, 2009

486
‘Ateya Helmi Mahmoud al-Samouni
Male 46 Farmer
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

487
Shatha al-‘Abed Abed Rabbu al-Habbash
Female 10 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

488
Suheir Zeyad Ramadan al-Nemer
Female 11 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

489
Mohammed Suleiman Khalil al-Jammasi
Male 23 Jobless
Al-Sha’af / Gaza
Militant
Militant

490
‘Awni Sa’adi Salman al-Deeb
Male 54 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

491
Ruba Mohammed Fadel Abu Ras
Female 14 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

492
Khalil Mohammed Ibrahim Meqdad
Male 21 Worker
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

493
Ahmed Khalil Saleh Abu Daf
Male 38 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
East of al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

494
Ibrahim Zeyad Ramadan al-Nemar
Male 21 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

495
Mustafa Zuhdi Mustafa Erhayem
Male 22
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

496
Jihad Samir Fayez Erhayem
Male 9 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

497
Abdul Hamid Juma’a Juma’a
Male 80 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

498
Mohammed Fou’ad Mahmoud al-Helu
Male 26
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

499
Bassam Mohammed Farouq Suleiman Abu ‘Ajwah
Male 32 Worker
Sheja’eya / Gaza

500
Mohammed Khamis Suleiman ‘Awad
Male 24
Jabaliya/ Northern Gsxs
Militant
Militant

501
‘Umar Sa’ad Allah bdul Jawad al-Jaro
Male 63 Worker
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Jafa Street

502
Farah ‘Ammar Fou’ad al-Helu
Female 1
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

503
Abdul Sayed Yousif Khamis ‘Umar
Male 19 Worker
Abu Iskandar area near Halima al-Sa’adeya School/ Gaza
Al-‘Atatra/ Northern Gaza

504

505
Qusai Reyad Mohammed al-Batrikhy
Male 18 Student
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Al-Sha’af

506
Ahmed Yousif Ibrahim al-Batsh
Male 19 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon

507
Hamdi Mahmoud Mohammed al-Samouni
Male 85 Farmer
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

508
Asma’a Ibrahim Hussein ‘Afana
Female 12 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

509
Fou’ad Mahmoud Hassan al-Helu
Male 62 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

510
Isra’a Qusai Mohammed al-Habbash
Female 13 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

511
Yaser Kamal Shbeir
Male 25 Medic / Military Medical Services
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza
Tal al-Hawa

512
Abdul Aziz Mohammed Mustafa al-Najjar
Male 23
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Militant
Militant

513
Mahmoud Khaled ‘Eleyan al-Mashharawi
Male 13 Student
Al-Daraj / Gaza

514
Abdul Karim Zeyad Ramadan Aal-Nemer
Male 14
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

515
Mohammed Bassam Mohammed ‘Anan
Male 25
Rimal / Gaza
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

516
Jihan Sami Sa’adi al- Helu
Female 17 Student
Al-Mina’a area / Gaza

517
Mohammed Faraj Isma’il Hassouna
Male 16 Student
Yarmouk Street / Gaza
Jafa Street

518
Ahmmed Khader Diab Subeih
Male 17 Student
Yarmouk Street / Gaza
Al-Daraj

519
Anas Fadel Na’im
Male 23 Medic / Military Medical Services
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa

520
Ra’afat Sami Ibrahim (Muharram)
Male 20 Medic / Military Medical Services
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Tal al-Hawa

521
Maryam Mutaw’i Nasrallah Mtawe’in
Female 75
Sheikh Ejlin / Gaza

522
‘Umar Mahmoud al-Barade’i
Male 12 Student
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza

523
Mohammed Hekmat Abu Halima
Male 18 Student
Al-‘Atatra area / Northern Gaza

524
Mohammed Khader Yousif Hammouda
Male 19 Student
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

525
Abdullah Heidar Khalil Abu ‘Oda
Male 19 Fisherman
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

526
Ala’a Addin Yahya Mohammed Zaqout
Male 31 Employee
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

527
Mohammed Hassan al-Baba
Male 35 Jobless
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

528
Yousif ‘Abed Hassan Barbakh
Male 14 Student
Al-Shuka Village / Rafah

529
Belal Abed Rabbu Mohammed Shehab
Male 26 Employee
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza

530
Hassan ‘Isam Hassan al-Jammasi
Male 20
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

531
Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed al-Da’our
Male 32 Jobless
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

532
Mohammed Khamis Hussein al-Kilani
Male 36
Al-Daraj / Gaza
Gaza Police Station

533
Abdul Rahim Helmi al-‘Abed al-Ashqar
Male 53 Teacher
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

534
Belal Mohammed Ghaben
Male 27 Employee
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

535
‘Ayed ‘Imad Jamal Khira
Male 14 Student
Al-Daraj / Gaza
Sheja’eya

536
Na’im Hussein Mustafa ‘Abbas
Male 59 Jobless
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

537
Yahya Salman Abu Halima
Male 17
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

538
Eyad Nabil Abdul Rahman Saleh
Male 16 Student
Al-‘Awda Apartment Buildings / Northern Gaza

539
Samir ‘Iyada Yousif al-Shrafi
Male 48 Trader
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza

540
Rayya Salama Salman Abu Hajjaj
Female 56
Wadi Gaza Village / Middle Gaza

541
Mohammed ‘Isam Mohammed Naser
Male 25 Employee
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
East of Jabaliya / Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

542
Mo’in ‘Ata Mohammed Hussein
Male 39
Al-‘Atatra area/ Northern Gaza

543
Ibrahim Kamal Subhi
Male 9 Student
Al-Zahra Cityy/ Beit
Beit Lahia / Northern ‘Awaja Lahia/ Northern Gaza

544
Louay Yahya Salman Abu Halima
Male 18 Student
Al-Seyafa area/ Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

545
Majda Abdul Karim Abu Hajjaj
Female 35
Wadi Gaza Village / Middle Gaza

546
Salman Fayyad Abu Meddein
Male 72
Sheikh Ejlin / Gaza

547
Ghassan Ali Ali Abu al-‘Amarin
Male 23 Student
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

548
Jamila Abdul Aziz Salem al-Da’our
Female 61 Housewife
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

549
Jihad Kamal Hassan Ahmed
Female 18 Student
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Sheikh Ejlin

550
‘Ayed Abdul Hadi Abdul Khaleq Abu Nada
Male 40 Worker
Beit Lahia Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Al-Zahra Roundabout/ Middle Gaza

551
Mohammed Abdul Razzaq Ali al-Hila
Male 23 University student
Al-Amal neighborhood/ Khan Younis

552
‘Arafa Hani ‘Arafat Abdul Dayem
Male 35 Medic / Military Medical Services + (teacher)
Izbat Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
Western Roundabout of Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

553
Adham Na’im Mohammed Abdul Malik
Male 17 Student
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Al-Isra’a neighborhood/ Northern Gaza

554
Ahmed Mohammed Mahmoud al-Adham
Male 53 Farmer
Beit Lahia Main Street / Northern Gaza

555
Tha’er Shaker Sha’aban Qarmout
Male 17 Student
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
29-Dec-08

556
Wadi’ Amin ‘Umar
Male 3
Al-Nuzha Street / Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

557
Mohammed Muti’a Mohammed al-Shrafi
Male 23 Policeman
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

558
Zeyad Mohammed Selmi Abu Sneima
Male 10 Student
Miraj area / Rafah
Al-Naser Village / Rafah

559
Mousa Yousif Hassan Barbakh
Male 16 Student
Al-Shuka Village / Rafah

560
Al-Sayed Hammouda Shehada Abu Sultan
Male 27 Jobless
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

561
Hammouda Shehada Khader Abu Sultan
Male 53 Jobless
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

562
Salman Hammad Mraziq Abu Khammash
Male 39 Farmer
Al-Naser Village / Rafah

563
‘Usama Mesleh Suleiman
Male 20 Jobless
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

564
Isma’il Mousa Isma’il al-Soussi
Male 50 Jobless
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

565
Adnan Mohammed Abdul Latif al-Shalfouh
Male 22
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

566
Hamza Zuheir Reziq Tantish
Male 12 Student
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

567
Mahmoud Zaher Reziq Tantish
Male 18 Student
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

568
Mohammed Akram Mohammed Abu Harbid
Male 19 Student
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
04-Jan-09 03-Jan-09
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza

569
Ahmed Hussein Abed Rabbu al-Mabhouh
Male 29
Izbat Abed Rabbu / Northern Gaza

570
Mahmoud Sami Yahya ‘Asaleya
Male 3
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza

571
Mohammed Mu’in ‘Ateya Abu al-Jedian
Male 20 Jobless
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

572
Mahdi Abed Hassan Barbakh
Male 20 Worker
Al-Shuka Village / Rafah

573
Mohammed Bashir Mohammed Khader
Male 25 Worker
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

574
Tamer Daoud Mohammed Baker
Male 24 Policeman
Tal al-Hawa / Gaza 04-Jan-09 27-Dec-08
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

575
Abed Hassan Mohammed Barbakh
Male 44 Worker
Al-Shuka Village / Rafah

576
Ayman Mohammed Mohammed ‘Afana
Male 27 Policeman
Tal al-Sultan / Rafah
Al-Zaytoon

577
Nouh Hammouda Shehada Abu Sultan
Male 20 Student
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

578
Ahmed Sami Ahmed Abu Meddein
Male 54
Al-Zahra / Middle Gaza

Al-Zahra / Middle Gaza

579
Mohammed Ahmed Sa’id al-Hashim
Male 19
Jabaliya/ Northern Gaza
Militant
Militant

580
‘Ateya Rushdi Khalil Aal-Khuli
Male 16 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

581
Baha’a Mou’ayad Kamal Abu Wadi
Male 8 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

582
Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed al-Bal’awi
Male 63 Jobless
Opposite to the Specialist Children Hospital/ al-Naser/ Gaza
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

583
Mohammed Abed Hassan Barbakh
Male 19 Jobless
Al-Shuka Village / Rafah

584
Isma’il Abdullah Suleiman Abu Sneima
Male 15 Student
Al-Shuka Village / Rafah

585
Shawqi Abdul Jawad al-‘Attar
Male 46
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

586
Mohammed Ibrahim Abu Sha’ar
Male 21 Policeman/ member of the al-Qassam Brigades
Kherbat al-‘Adas/ Rafah
Militant
Militant

JANUARY 5, 2009

587
Ahmed Mohammed Msallam Salama Abu Hatab
Male 24 Assistant Pharmacist
Khan Younis Refugee camp/ Khan Younis
30-Dec-08
Vicinity of al-Qarara Police Station/ Khan Younis

588
Muti’ Abdul Rahman Ibrahim al-Samouni
Female 63 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

589
Walid Rashad Helmi al-Samouni
Male 17 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

590
Nidal Ahmed Mahmoud al-Samouni
Male 32 Farmer
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

591
Abdul Naser Jamal Asa’ad Shuheibar
Male 45 Worker
Al-Sabra / Gaza
Eastern Road

592
Ashraf Abdul Hakim Salem al-Issi
Male 25 Quran Memorizer
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

593
Rawhi Jamal Ramadan al-Sultan
Male 28 Worker
Al-Salatin area/ Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

594
Nahil Khaled Abu ‘Eisha
Female 32 Housewife
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

595
Usama Jihad Ali Abu Jbara
Male 22 Jobless
Block 4 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza

596
Rabab Izzat Ali al-Samouni
Female 32 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

597
Ghaida’a ‘Amer Abu ‘Eisha
Female 8 Student
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

598
Nassar Ibrahim Helmi al-Samouni
Male 5
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

599
Hussein Mahmoud Abdul Malek al-Sultan
Male 23 Worker
Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

600
Rahma Mohammed Mahmoud al-Samouni
Female 50 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

601
Samir ‘Umar Saleh Sa’adeya
Male 50 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Rimal

602
‘Azza Salah Talal al- Samouni
Female 5 mnths
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

603
Ibrahim Rawhi Mohammed ‘Aqel
Male 16 Student
Block 4 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza
Al-Bureij Refugee camp / Middle Gaza

604
Ahmed Fathi Mustafa al-Nazli
Male 20 Student
‘Asqoula area/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon

605
Isma’il Ibrahim Helmi al-Samouni
Male 14 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

606
Naji Nedal Abdul Salam al-Hamalawi
Male 15 Student
Block 12 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza
Al-Bureij Refugee camp / Middle Gaza

607
Jihad Ali Ahmed Abu Jbara
Male 53 Teacher
Block 4 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza
Al-Bureij Refugee camp / Middle Gaza

608
Mohammed Abdul Hamid ASa’ad Abu Kmeil
Male 21
Al-Mughraqa area/ Middle Gaza
Militant

609
Abed Samir Ali al-Sultan
Male 19.5 Student
Al-Salatin area/ Northern Gaza
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

610
Basel Jihad Ali Abu Jbara
Male 30 Employee
Block 4 / al-Bureij / Middle Gaza
Al-Bureij Refugee Camp / Middle Gaza

611
Mohammed Shehada Ali Ahmed “’Abed”
Male 19
Al-Sha’af / Gaza

612
Mohammed Samir Hijji
Male 16 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

613
Hamdi Maher Hamdi al-Samouni
Male 22 Farmer
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

614
Huda Na’el Fares al-Samouni
Female 7 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

615
Mo’men Mahmoud Talal ‘Ilaw
Male 12 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

616
Issa Ahmed al-‘At’out
Male 21 Student
Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza

617
Lubna Fou’ad Tawfiq Aal-Maleh
Female 27 Housewife
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

618
Zakaria Abdul Naser Ibrahim al-kayali
Male 20 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Jafa Street

619
Mahrous Amin Mohammed Shuheibar
Male 37 Driver
Gaza

620
Fayez Yousif Rezeq Hassan
Male 45 Driver
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

621
Mohammed Helmi Talal al-Samouni
Male 6 mnths
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

622
Khadra al-‘Abed Khalil al-Maleh
Female 80 Housewife
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

623
Hanadi Basem Kamel Khalifa
Female 13 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

624
‘ Amer Rezeq Saber Abu ‘Eisha
Male 40 Worker
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

625
Ramadan Ali Mohammed Filfil
Male 15 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

626
Salah Hassan Salama Rafi’a
Male 37
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

627
Tawfiq Rashad Helmi al-Samouni
Male 21 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

628
Asa’ad Sa’adi Ahmed Hammouda
Male 75 Retired
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
03-Jan-09

629
Mohammed ‘Amer Abu ‘Eisha
Male 10 Student
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

630
Mohammed Amin Mustfa Hijji
Male 36
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

631
Shahd Mohammed Amin Hijji
Female 3
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

632
Ayat Yousif Mohammed al-Dufda’a
Female 13 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

633
Nadia Misbah Salem Sa’ad
Female 14 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

634
Leila Nabih Mahmoud al-Samouni
Female 45 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

635
Fatheia Ayman Salim al-Dabbari
Female 4 mnths
Al-Shuka village/ Rafah

636
Mohammed Rashad Khalil al-Khouli
Male 18
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

637
Lutfi ‘Awni Abdul Fattah Jaddou’a
Male 19 Student
Near the Community College of Applied Science and Technology/ Gaza
Al-Sabra

638
Hashim ‘Awni Abdul Fattah Jaddou’a
Male 18 Black Smith
Al-Sabra / Gaza

639
Mohammed Mohammed Nabih al-Ghazali
Male 27 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Militant

640
Rezqa Mohammed Mahmoud al-Samouni
Female 59 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

641
Rashad Helmi Mahmoud al-Samouni
Male 36 Farmer
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Militant

642
Mohammed Ibrahim Helmi al-Samouni
Male 24 Employee
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

643
Maha Mohammed Ibrahim al-Samouni
Female 22 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

644
Ahmed Sedqi Hamdan Kuheil
Male 25 Worker
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

645
Isma’il Heidar ‘Eleiwa
Male 7 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

646
Ghazi ‘Awni Abdul Fattah Jaddoua’
Male 24 Blacksmith
Al-Sabra / Gaza

647
Rezqa Wa’el Faris al-Samouni
Female 13 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

648
Faris Wa’el Faris al-Samouni
Male 14 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

649
Hanan Khamis Sa’adi al-Samouni
Female 20 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

650
Ishaq Ibrahim Helmi al-Samouni
Male 13 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

651
Amal Zaki ‘Eleiwa
Female 40 Housewife
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

652
Lana Heidar ‘Eliwa
Female 10 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

653
Mo’’men Heidar ‘Eleiwa
Male 12 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

654
Aya Usama Nayef al-Sersawy
Female 6 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

655
Leila Salman Suleiman Hamada
Female 61 Housewife
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

656
Ala’a Ibrahim Matar (al-Harazin)
Male 19 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

657
Safa’a Subhi Mahmoud al-Samouni
Female 23 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

658
Ahmed Mahmoud Hussein al-Shafe’i
Male 21 Student
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
Militant

659
Kamla Ali Mustafa al-‘Attar
Female 82 Housewife
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza
‘Alatatra area / Northern Gaza

660
Ghanima Mas’oud Mohammed Abu Halima
Female 63 Housewife
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

661
Samir Rashid Mohammed Mohammed
Male 44 UNRWA employee
Izbat Abed Rabbu / Northern Gaza

662
Seif al-Islam Ahmed Mohammed ‘Odwan
Male 20 Employee
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
Militant

663
Akram Mohammed Isma’il Jarad
Male 21 Employee
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
Militant

664
Basem Mustafa Abdullah al-Habil
Male 26 Volunteer in the Civil Defense Service
‘Amer Housning Project/ Northern Gaza

665
Al-Syed Jawad Mohammed al-Siksik
Male 16 Student
Al-Twam area/ Northern Gaza
04-Jan-09

666
Ali Salama Deeb al-Khatib
Male 42 Worker
‘Asaleya Housing Project/ al-Seqqa Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

667
Hussein Khalil Ibrahim Abu Jarad
Male 21 Employee
Jabaliya Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
Militant

668
Mohmmed Salam ‘Awwad al-Tarfawi
Male 4
Opposite to al-Je’el Petrol Station/ al-Karama Street/ al-Qerem Area / Northern Gaza

669
Mohammed Naser ‘Ateya Hamdona
Male 19 Student
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

670
Nada Radwan Na’im Mardi
Female 6 Student
Al-Seyafa area/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

671
Ahmed Jihad Mohammed Abu Skheila
Male 20 University student
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Militant

672
We’am Jamal Mahmoud al-Kafarneh
Female 2
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
04-Jan-09

673
Amjad Isma’il Mohammed Radwan
Male 36 Worker
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
Militant

674
Younis Mohammed Abdul Wahab al-Ghandour
Male 24 Policeman
Sheikh Zayed Housing City/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

675
Maher Younis Ramadan Abdul Dayem
Male 32 Worker
Izbat Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza

676
Nafez Jamal Sa’id Abdul Dayem
Male 22 Worker
Izbat Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza

677
‘Arafat Mohammed ‘Arafat Abdul Dayem
Male 12 Student
Izbat Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza

678
Rami Yousif Mohammed al-Ghandour
Male 29
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

679
Suheil Ahmed Rashad al-‘Asali
Male 24 Worker
Opposite to al-Kuzundar Petrol Station/ ‘Amer Housning Project/ al-Twam area/ Northern Gaza

680
Ahmed Samih Ahmed al-Kafarna
Male 18 Student
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
03-Jan-09

681
Ahmed Hassan Abdul Karim Abu Zour
Male 20 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

682
Ahmed Fathi Mohammed Matar
Male 19 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

683
Mohammed Samir Abdul Latif Salim
Male 28 Policeman
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

684
Bassam Mahmoud Mohammed Hammouda
Male 35 Jobless
Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza

685
Talal Helmi Mahmoud al-Samouni
Male 50 Worker
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

686
Ibtisam Ahmed Mohammed al-Qanu’a
Female 40 Housewife
Opposite to Mu’aweya Ibn Abi Sufian School/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
04-Jan-09

687
Eyad ‘Izzat Ali al-Samouni
Male 20 Farmer
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

688
Mahmoud Mo’in Ishaq al-Rifi
Male 18 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Militant

689
Mousa Mohammed Suleiman al-Jatali
Male 36 Worker
The Bedouin Village/ north of Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

690
Mahmoud Mohammed Khamis Abu Qamar
Male 15 Student
Block 4 / Jabalia Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

691
Sayed ‘Amer Abu ‘Eisha
Male 12 Student
Al-Shati Refugee Camp / Gaza

692
Ahmed Helmi ‘Ateya al-Samouni
Male 4
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

693
Al-Mu’tasim Bellah Mohammed Ibrahim al-Samouni
Male 1 mnth
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

694
Mansour Mahmoud Madi
Male 21
Rafah
Al-Sha’af/ Gaza
Militant

695
Khalil Mohammed Khalil Helles
Male 16 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
03-Jan-09

696
Mu’tasim Heider ‘Eleiwa
Male 13 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

JANUARY 6, 2009

697
Mohammed Eyad Fayez al-Daia
Male 7 mnths
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

698
Fayez Misbah Hashim al-Daia
Male 60 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

699
Ala’a Eyad Fayez al-Daia
Female 7 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

700
Ali Eyad Fayez al-Daia
Male 10 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

701
Sabrin Fayez Mesbah al-Daia
Female 24 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

702
Bara’a Ramez Fayez al-Daia
Female 1.5
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

703
Rawya Rajab ‘Awad
Female 32 Pharmacist / Military Medical Services
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
28-Dec-08
Sheja’eya

704
Hussein Khalil Hassan ‘Arafat
Male 63 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

705
Fadwa Khalil Mohammed Kuheil
Female 50 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

706
Hussam Fathi Abu al-Sabah
Male 21
Deir al-Balah Refugee Camp
Militant

707
Mohammed Ahmed Diab Shweideh
Male 20
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Militant
Militant

708
Islam Isma’il Suleiman Abdul Jawwad
Female 26 Housewife
Al-Maghazi/ Middle Gaza

709
Mesbah Ayoub Ibrahim Ayoub
Male 66 Jobless
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza

710
‘Ahed Eyad Mohammed Qadas
Male 14 Student
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

711
Rehab Abdul Mon’im Ramadan ‘Awad
Female 47
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

712
Ahmed Mousa Ahmed ‘Arafat
Male 29 University student
Abasan Village/ Khan Younis
Abasan al-Jadida/ Khan Younis

713
Khadra Abdul ‘Aziz Abdul ‘Aziz ‘Awad
Female 40 Housewife
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

714
Tha’er Jihad Ahmed al-Najjar
Male 21 Jobless
Khza’a/ Khan Younis

715
Ibrahim Suleiman Mohammed Baraka
Male 12 Student
Bani Sheila/ Khan Younis

716
Mohammed Bassam Mohammed Eid
Male 18
Al-Bassa area/ Deir al-Balah/ Middle Gaza
Militant

717
Raghda Fayez Mesbah al-Daia
Female 34 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

718
Mohammed Kamal Mohammed Mekdad
Male 26 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Al-Tufah

719
Islam ‘Oda Khalil Abu ‘Amsha
Female 12 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Al-Tufah

720
Mohammed Mo’in Shafiq Deeb
Male 16 Student
Opposite to al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

721
Amal Matar Saleh Deeb
Female 38 Housewife
Opposite to al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

722
Radwan Fayez Mesbah Al- Daia
Male 22 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

723
Abdul Wahab Ahmed Hussein Hassanein
Male 63 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

724
Ahmed Jaber Jabr Hweij
Male 6 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza 06-Jan-09 27-Dec-08 Al-Tufah

725
Safa’a Saleh Mohammed al-Daia
Female 20 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

726
Yousif Mohammed Fayez al-Daia
Male 2
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

727
Eyad Hassan Mohammed ‘Ubeid
Male 21 Employee
Al-Nuzha Street/ Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza
Militant

728
Amani Mohammed Fayez al-Daia
Female 6 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

729
Kawkab Sa’id Hussein al-Daia
Female 57 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

730
Mahmoud Sedkqi Hamdan Kuheil
Male 20 Worker
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

731
Qamar Mohammed Fayez al-Daia
Female 5
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

732
Arij Mohammed Fayez al-Daia
Female 3
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

733
Sharaf Addin Eyad Fayez al-Daia
Male 5
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

734
Ramez Fayez Mesbah al-Daia
Male 27 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

735
Mohammed Marwan Mahmoud ‘Abed
Male 25 Carpenter
Jafa Street/ Gaza

736
Raba’a Eyad Fayez al-Daia
Female 6 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

737
Mohammed Abdullah Mohammed ‘Ubeid
Male 31 Employee
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

738
Heijar Isma’il Yousif Ansyo
Female 60 Housewife
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

739
Sa’id Jamal Sa’id Abdul Dayem
Male 28 University student
Izbat Beit Hanoun/ Northern Gaza
05-Jan-09

740
Ranin Abdullah Ahmed Saleh
Female 12 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

741
Mahtheya Shehada Hassan Saleh
Female 51 Housewife
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

742
Fatma Samir Shafiq Deeb
Female 23 Housewife
Opposite to al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

743
Ra’afat Fou’ad Sa’id Abu Askar
Male 30 Employee
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

744
Ibrahim Ahmed Hassan Ma’arouf
Male 15 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

745
Abdul Rahim Yousif Mousa al-Debis
Male 24
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

746
Abdullah Ahmed Qaddura Saleh
Male 55 Jobless
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

747
Mohammed ‘Ayesh Mansour Abu Naser
Male 25 Worker
Al-‘Atatara area/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

748
Khader Ahmed Ibrahim Zidan
Male 40 Jobless
Jabalia Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

749
Mohammed Samir Shafiq Deeb
Male 24 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

750
Adam Ma’amoun Saqer Ramadan al-Kurdi
Male 3
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

751
Amin Eid Mohammed Khdeir
Male 24 Worker
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
Al-Fakhoura School/ Northern Gaza

752
Ishteiwi Moussa’d Msharraf al-Sheikh Manna’a
Male 61 Jobless
The Bedouin Village/ Northern Gaza

753
‘Afaf Mohammed al-‘Abed Dmeida
Female 28 Housewife
Martyr Saleh Dardona/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

754
‘Imad Mohammed Abdul
Rahman Sha’alaq Male 52 Policeman
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

755
Isma’il Mohammed Mahmoud Abu Naser
Male 55 Dressmaker
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

756
Hamdi Yousif Ibrahim Hammad
Male 34 Jobless
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

757
Abdul Rahman Saleh Abdul Hamid Yasin
Male 22 Jobless
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

758
Ayman Ahmed ‘Amer al-Kurd
Male 28 Employee
Al-Falouja area/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

759
Basel Abdul Hamid Mahmoud Abu Ghabin
Male 40 Jobless
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

760
Huthayfa Jihad Khaled al-Kahlut
Male 18 Student
Tal al-Za’atar/ Northern Gaza

761
Tareq Mahmoud Yousif (Hussein)
Male 22 Employee
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

762
Samia Fathi Abdul Fattah Saleh
Female 19 Housewife
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

763
‘Isam Samir Shafiq Deeb
Male 13 Student
Opposite to al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

764
Marwan Hassan Abdul Mo’min Qdeih
Male 5
Abasan Village/ Khan Younis

765
Anwar Hassan Mohammed Lubbad
Male 53 Employee
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

766
Ala’a Mo’in Shafiq Deeb
Female 20 Student
Opposite to al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

767
Shamma Salim Hussein Deeb
Female 65 Housewife
Opposite to al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

768
Bashar Samir Mousa Naji
Male 14 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

769
Isma’il ‘Adnan Hassan Hweila
Male 16 Student
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

770
Mohammed Ramadan Hamad al-Debis
Male 29 Jobless
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

771
‘Ateya Hassan Mustafa al-Madhoun
Male 59 Jobless
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

772
Zaher Mohammed Mahmoud ‘Abed
Male 20 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Jaffa Street

773
Zeyad ‘Ateya Hassan al-Madhoun
Male 34 Employee
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

774
Shahd Hussein Nazmi Sultan
Female 8 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

775
Mofid Fathi Abdullah Abu Sa’ada
Male 38 Dressmaker
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

776
Ahmed Shaher Fayeq
Khdeir
Male 10 Student
Al-Seyafa area/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
03-Jan-09

777
Samir Shafiq Abud Hamid Deeb
Male 42 Worker
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

778
Eyad Fayezz Mesbah al-Daia
Male 36 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

779
Nour Mo’in Shafiq Deeb
Male 3
Opposite to al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

780
Mustafa Mo’in Shafiq Deeb
Male 13 Student
Opposite to al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

781
Asil Mo’in Shafiq Deeb
Female 10 Student
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

782
Khaled Mohammed Fou’ad Abu ‘Askar
Male 20 Employee
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

783
Belal Hamza Ali ‘Ubeid
Male 17 Student
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

784
Mohammed Basem Ahmed Shaqqoura
Male 9 Student
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

785
Yousif Sa’ad Ramadan al-Kahlut
Male 18 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

786
Lina Abdul Mon’im Nafez Hassan
Female 10 Student
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

787
Eyad Jaber Ibrahim Amen
Male 20 Jobless
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

788
‘Imad Mohammed Fou’ad Abu ‘Askar
Male 14 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

789
Amjad Majdi Ahmed al-Bayed
Male 16 Student
Rimal/ Gaza

790
Mohammed Rezeq al-Banna
Male 25 Member of National Security Service
Deir al-Balah Refugee Camp/ Middle Gaza
Militant

791
Khetam Eyad Fayez al-Daia
Female 9 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

792
Heba Ali Jamil Abu ‘Amsha ( Ma’arouf)
Female 28 Housewife
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Al-Tufah

793
Zeyad Sa’id Hassan Nassar
Male 25 Jobless
Deir al-Balah/ Middle Gaza
Militant

794
Khalil Madi Mohmmed al-Hasanat
Male 21 Jobless
Deir al-Balah Refugee Camp/ Middle Gaza
02-Jan-09
Militant

795
Ala’a Isma’il Jaber Isma’il
Male 19 Student
Al-Bassa area/ Deir al-Balah
02-Jan-09
Militant

796
Ala’a Addin Tawfiq Ghattas al-Fayoumi
Male 35 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

797
Fida’a Farid Salama Abu Sha’ar
Female 20
Wadi al-Salqa/ Middle Gaza

798
Rawda Helal Hussein al-Daia
Female 32 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

799
Mohammed Hashem Isma’il ‘Afana
Male 22 Jobless
Deir al-Balah/ Middle Gaza
Vicinity of Middle Gaza Police Station
Militant

800
Mohammed Mohammed Abou She’ira
Male 24
Deir al-Balah Refugee Camp/ Middle Gaza
Militant

801
Rafiq Abdul Baset Saleh al-Khudary
Male 16 Student
Rimal/ Gaza

802
Tazal Isma’il Mohammed al-Daia
Female 28 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

803
Salsabil Ramez Fayez al-Daia
Female 5 mnths
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

804
Ahmed ‘Abed Hamad al-Hasanat
Male 32 Policeman
Deir al-Balah Refugee Camp/ Middle Gaza
02-Jan-09

805
Hassan Ahmed Masmah
Male 21 Policeman
Deir al-Balah Refugee Camp/ Middle Gaza
02-Jan-09

806
Mohammed ‘Ata Hassan ‘Azzam
Male 13 Student
Al-Mughraqa/ Middle Gaza

807
Abdul Jalil Hassan Abdul Jalil al-Halis
Male 8 Student
Al-Shati Refugee Camp/ Gaza

808
Nesrin Suleiman Abu Sweireh
Female 24 Housewife
Al-Sawarha area/ Middle Gaza
04-Jan-09

809
Sahar Hatem Hesham Daoud
Female 17 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

810
Hassan ‘Ata Hassan ‘Azzam
Male 20 mnths
Al-Mughraqa/ Middle Gaza

811
‘Ata Hassan ‘Azzam
Male 44
Al-Mughraqa/ Middle Gaza

812
Zakaria Yahya Ibrahim al-Tawil
Male 5
Behind the al-Qassam Mosque/ Nuseirat/ Middle Gaza
Block 2

813
Mahmoud Abdullah ‘Eteiwa Abou Sha’ar
Male 26
Wadi al-Salqa/ Deir al-Balah/ Middle Gaza

JANUARY 7, 2009

814
Abdul Rahman Jamil Badawi (Qasem)
Male 25
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

815
Hammam Mohammed Khamis Issa
Male 26
Block 3/ al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza
Militant

816
Hassan Salem Naji al-Hawwari
Male 80
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

817
Tawfiq Khaled Isma’il al-Kahlut
Male 12 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

818
Mo’in Akram Ahmed Selmi
Male 34
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Militant

819
Hassan Khalil Ahmed al-Kahlut
Male 20
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

820
‘Ula Maso’ud Khalil ‘Arafat
Male 27 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
04-Jan-09

821
Rabi’a Mesbah Mahmoud al-‘Arini
Male 49 Worker
Tal al-Za’atar/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

822
Basel Sami Rezeq Sbeih
Male 28 Farmer
Al-Seyafa area/ Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza
Militant

823
Rezeq Sami Rezeq Sbeih
Male 42 Farmer
Al-Seyafa area/ Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza

824
Mahmoud Asa’ad Mohammed Fattouh
Male 24 Worker
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Al-Sha’af/ Gaza
Militant

825
Abdullah Jihad Hussein Juda
Male 15 Student
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

826
Mahmoud Zaki Issa Hmeid
Male 18 Student
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

827
Jebril ‘Ateya Ibrahim Mansour
Male 19 Student
Al-Zawya Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

828
Wafa’a Nabil ‘Ali Abu Jarad
Female 21 Housewife
Beit Hanoun/ Northern Gaza
05-Jan-09

829
Nasim Salama Ispero Saba
Male 25 Electrician
Sheikh Radwan / Gaza

830
Ahmed Fawzi Hassan Lubbad
Male 17
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Militant

831
Nader Bassam Ibrahim Qaddoura
Male 17 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/
Northern Gaza

832
Mohammed Maher Nemer Badawi (Qasem)
Male 18 Worker
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

833
Ihab ‘Isam Rajab al-Harazin
Male 22 Policeman
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
27-Dec-08
‘Arafat Police City/ Gaza

834
Basel Nabil Ibrahim Faraj
Male 21 Journalist
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
27-Dec-08
Tal al-Hawa

835
Radwan Mohammed Radwan ‘Ashour
Male 12 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

836
Mohammed Khaled Isma’il al-Kahlut
Male 43 Student
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

837
Hatem Walid Salem Ghazal
Male 42 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

838
Nasha’at Sami Rezeq Sbeih
Male 24 Farmer/ student
Al-Seyafa area/ Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza
Militant

839
Majed Subhi Ramadan Mushtaha
Male 22
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Militant

840
‘Azmi Mohammed Ibrahim Diab
Male 22 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Militant

841
Ahmed Yousif Mohammed Hassanein
Male 21 Employee
Block 4/ al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

842
Ahmed Salah Ali Hawwas
Male 19 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza
Militant

843
Abdul Rahman Mohammed Radwan ‘Ashour
Male 11 Student
Al-Zaytoon / Gaza

844
Husam Ra’ed Rezeq Subuh
Male 12 Student
Beit Lahiya/ Northern Gaza

845
Mustafa Rashad Fadel al-Khaldi
Male 18 Student
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

846
Sherif Zaki Rezeq Subuh
Male 22 Farmer
Al-Seyafa area/ Beit
Lahiya / Northern Gaza
Al-Seyafa area / Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza
Militant

847
Abdul Karim Shafiq Hussein Hassan
Male 18 Student
Al-Saftawi area/ Northern Gaza
Al-‘Atatra area/ Northern Gaza

848
Habib Khaled Isma’il al-Kahlut
Male 14 Student
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

849
Ihsan ‘Eleyan Abdul Rahman al-Ashqar
Male 24 Employee
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

850
Sabri Mohammed Hassan Salman
Male 55 Worker
Tal al-Za’atar/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

851
Mohammed Ali Ahmed Mohammed al-Sultan
Male 56 Jobless
Al-Salatin Area/ Northern Gaza
Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza
Militant

852
Mohammed ‘Eleyan Abdul Rahman al-Ashkar
Male 30 Employee
Jabalia / Northern Gaza
Al-‘Amoudi Neighborhood/ Northern Gaza

853
Tayseer Mohammed Abdul ‘Aziz Zumlot
Male 50 Security forces officer
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

854
Anas ‘Aref Baraka
Male 8 Student
Al-Mahatta Area/ Wadi al-Salqa/ Deir al-Balah/ Middle Gaza
04-Jan-09

855
Salem Hamid Salem Abu Muosa
Male 23 Teacher
Khan Younis Refugee Camp/ Khan Younis
Militant

856
Hassan Rateb Mohammed Sama’an
Male 18 Student
Khan Younis Refugee Camp/ Khan Younis
Militant

857
Hamza ‘Oda Mohammed al-Khaldi
Male 25 Policeman
Block 12/ al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza
27-Dec-08

858
Salem Harb Hammad al-Bensh
Male 57 Nurse
Al-Salam Neighborhood/ Rafah

859
Mohammed Farid Ahmed al-Ma’asawabi
Male 16
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaaza

860
Abdullah Mohammed Shafiq Abdullah
Male 11 Student
Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza
06-Jan-09
Near al-Fakhoura School/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

861
Mohammed Farid Abdullah
Male 32 Employee
Jabalia Town / Northern Gaza
Militant

862
Mohammed Mohammed Hassan Ma’arouf
Male 60 Jobless
Izbat Abed Rabbu / Northern Gaza
Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza

863
Safeya Salem Hussein Abu Heidar
Female 40 Housewife
Al-‘Atatra Area/ Northern Gaza

864
Tareq Mohammed Nemer Abu ‘Amsha
Male 22 Employee
Al-Amal Neighborhood/
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza

865
Hazem ‘Eleyan Abdel Rahman al-Ashkar
Male 31 Employee
Jabalia / Northern Gaza

866
Jihad Rashad Mohammed al-‘Asali
Male 20 Student
‘Amer Housing Project/ Norhern Gaza
Jabalia / Northern Gaza

867
Khadija Abdul Razeq Abdul Fattah Zumlot
Female 70
Jabalia Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

868
Khaled Isma’il Mohammed al-Kahlut
Male 44 Worker
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

869
Bader Mohammed Mousa Abu Rashed
Female 70 Jobless
Izbat Abed Rabbu / Northern Gaza

870
Mohammed Mohammed Ahmed Abu Rokba
Male 85 Jobless
Jabalia / Northern Gaza

871
Su’ad Khaled Mohammed Munib ‘Abed Rabbu
Female 7 Student
Izbat Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza

872
Amal Khaled Mohammed Munib ‘Abed Rabbu
Female 2
Izbat Abed Rabbu / Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

873
Ibrahim Abdul Rahim Rajab Suleiman
Male 18 Student
Jabalia / Northern Gaza
Militant

874
Ahmed Adib Faraj Jneid
Male 25 Student
Al-Nader Steet/ Northern Gaza
Al-Zawya Street/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

875
Shadi ‘Isam Yousif Hamad
Male 32 Employee
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
05-Jan-09
Zemmu Roundabout/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

JANUARY 8, 2009

876
Yousif Zeyad Ahmed Zaqout
Male 24 Policeman
Al-‘Alami Housing Project/ Jabalia Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza
03-Jan-09

877
Jihad ‘Awwad ‘Oda Abu Mdeif
Male 56
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis

878
Bassam Sha’aban Ibrahim Abu Quta
Male 26 Worker
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Hammouda Roundabout/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

879
Hamed Mohi Addin al-Smeiri
Male 58 Worker
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis

880
Ahmed Mubarak Ahmed al-Sharihi
Male 65
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis

881
Basem Mohammed Shehda Dheir
Male 22
Sheja’eya / Gaza

882
‘Umar Ali Hammad Abu Magheisib
Male 20 Jobless
Wadi al-Salqa Village/ Middle Gaza

883
Ahmed Mohammed Mahmoud al-Astal
Male 27
Khan Younis
Militant

884
Ibrahim Mo’in al-‘Abed Juha
Male 14 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
05-Jan-09

885
Amr Mohammed Abdallah Nassar
Male 21 University student
Nuseirat New Refugee Camp/ Middle Gaza
Militant

886
Ala’a Mohammed Shehda Dheir
Male 23 Jobless
Sheja’eya / Gaza

887
Matar Sa’ad Abu Halima
Male 17
Izbat Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
Al-‘Atatra Area/ Northern Gaza

888
Basma Yaser ‘Abed Rabbu al-Jallawi
Female 5
Izbat Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp / Northern Gaza

889
‘Amer Ibrahim Khalil Ba’alousha
Male 10 Student
Apartment Building 12/ Al-Zahra’a City/ Middle Gaza

890
Halima Mohammed Hassan Badwan
Female 61 Jobless
Izbat Abed Rabbu / Northern Gaza

891
Asa’ad Mohammed Asa’ad al-Jamala
Male 24
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

892
Albina Vladimir yousif al-Jaru
Female 25 Physician / military medical services
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Sheja’eya

893
Bara’a Eyad Samih Shalha
Male 7 Student
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

894
Mohammed Khader ‘Abed Rajab
Male 17
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

895
Yousif ‘Awni Abdul Rahim al-Jaru
Male 2
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

896
Islam Jaber ‘Arafat Abdul Dayem
Male 16 Student
Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza
05-Jan-09
Izbat Beit Hanoun / Northern Gaza

897
Ra’ed Nafez Ahmed al-Malfouh
Male 27 Employee
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Militant

898
Mohammed Ali Hassan al- Sultan
Male 55 Jobless
Beit Lahiya Housing
Project / Northern Gaza
Al-Salatin Area/ Northern Gaza

899
Anwar Jabr Abdul Hafiz Abu Salem
Male 24
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Militant

900
Mohammed Nafez Deeb al-Hendi
Male 25 Jobless
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Militant

901
Usama Sa’id Mohammed Lubbad
Male 18 Student
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

902
Ahmed Talal Dader
Male 20
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

903
Ruqaya Mohammed Mohammed Abou al-Naja
Female 55 Housewife
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon

904
Ashraf Hassan Salman Kali
Male 18 Worker
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

905
Fawzi Mahmoud Abu al-‘Araj
Male 21
Deir al-Balah Refugee Camp/ Middle Gaza
Militant

906
Njud Rajab Ghabin
Female 30 Housewife
Al-‘Atatra Area/ Northern Gaza
Beit Lahiya/ Northern Gaza

907
Ihab Jamal Hassan al-Wheidi
Male 32 Journalist
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

908
Jamal Ahmed Hussein Nashwan
Male 42 Employee
Al-Amal Neighborhood/ Beit Hanoun/ Northern Gaza

909
Abdul Nasser Khalil Hassan ‘Oda
Male 21 Student
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza
Militant

JANUARY 9, 2009

910
Jawad Mahmoud Mohammed al-Hessi
Male 37 Journalist
Al-Shati Refugee Camp/ Gaza

911
Ala’a Hammad Mahmoud Murtaja
Male 26 Journalist
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

912
Fatma Fayez Mohammed al-Haw
Female 22 Housewife
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

913
Sa’id Mohammed Yousif Abu Matar
Male 51 Jobless
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

914
Suheib Mohammed al-Qara’an
Male 16 Student
Northern Qara’a/ al-Zawayda Village/ Middle Gaza

915
Nariman Ahmed Abdul Karim Abu ‘Oda
Female 16 Student
Al-Amal Neighborhood/ Beit Hanoun/ Northern Gaza

916
Fatma Ra’ed Zaki Jad Allah
Female 11 Student
Tal al-Za’atar/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

917
Reyad Yahya Mohammed al-Qara’an
Male 21
Northern Qara’a/ al-Zawayda Village/ Middle Gaza
Militant

918
Shams ‘Umar Khamis ‘Umar
Male 22
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza
Militant

919
Fatma Sa’id Mustafa Sa’ad
Female 43 Jobless
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

920
Ahmed Mohammed ‘Uda al-Kurd
Male 31 Jobless
Al-Qerem Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

921
‘Ammar Salim Mohammed al-Kayal
Male 35 Jobless
Al-Shati Refugee Camp/ Gaza

922
Baha’a Addin Zaki ‘Antar Eslim
Male 24 Jobless
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

923
Rana Fayez Nour Salha
Female 12
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

924
Sha’aban Mohammed Sha’aban Mushtaha
Male 22 Policeman
Sheja’eya / Gaza
‘Arafat Police City/ Gaza

925
Randa Fayez Mohammed Salha
Female 35 Housewife
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

926
Baha’a Addin Fayez Nour Salha
Male 5
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

927
Ramez Mahmoud Kamel Abu al-Kheir
Male 29
Sheja’eya / Gaza
Militant

928
Mohammed Hussein al-Qara’an
Male 40
Northern Qara’a/ al-Zawayda Village/ Middle Gaza
Militant

929
Hussam Ibrahim Mteir Nassar (al-Qara’an)
Male 23
Northern Qara’a/ al-Zawayda Village/ Middle Gaza

930
Basem Ibrahim Hussein al-Qra’an
Male 24
Northern Qara’a/ al-Zawayda Village/ Middle Gaza

931
Shahd Sa’ad Allah Matar Abu Halima
Female 2
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

932
Isma’il Ayman Jamil Yasin
Male 17 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

933
Deya’a Addin Fayez Nour Salha
Male 14 Student
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

934
Rula Fayez Nour Salha
Female 2
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

935
‘Is’id Suleiman Sa’id al-Rweidi
Male 54 Worker
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

936
Ibrahim Mahmoud Ahmed Weshah
Male 25 Policeman
Main Roundabout/ Nuseirat/ Middle Gaza
Nuseirat Refugee camp 1/ Middle Gaza

937
Mohammed Ibrahim al-Qara’an
Male 56 Fisherman
Northern Qara’a/ al-Zawayda Village/ Middle Gaza

938
Eyad Saber Nassar
Male 28
Northern Qara’a/ al-Zawayda Village/ Middle Gaza

939
Mohammed Mubarak al-‘Abed Saleh
Male 65 Jobless
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

940
Ibrahim Rashid Abdul Ghani Qweider
Male 25 Electrician
Near al-Quds Open University/ Nuseirat/ Middle Gaza
Militant

941
Ahmed Ibrahim Selmi Abu Qleiq
Male 18
Bedouin Village/ Northern Gaza

942
Ibrahim Mustafa Sa’id
Male 17
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

943
Wedad Mohammed al-Qara’an
Female 17 Student
Northern Qara’a/ al-Zawayda Village/ Middle Gaza

944
Halima Ismail Ibrahim Saleh
Female 57 Housewife
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

945
Mohammed Othman Khalil Ishteiwi
Male 29 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

946
Mazen Sa’id Mohammed Abu Matar
Male 29 Policeman
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

947
‘Umar Khader Mohammed Juma’a
Male 18
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Al-Isra’a Neighborhood/ Northern Gaza
Militant

948
Ala’a Ahmed Fathi Jaber
Female 13 Student
Gaza Old Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

949
Sumaia Juma’a Sa’id Sa’ad
Female 20 Jobless
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

950
Ghanima Sultan Fawzi Halawa
Female 11 Student
Jafa Street/ Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

951
Ahmed Ibrahim Ahmed Juma’a
Male 24 University student
Al-Twam area/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

952
Tamer Jamal Mahmoud Abu Hlayel
Male 24 Worker
Near al-Shuhada Roundabout/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

953
Jamal Hussein Msallam al-Smeiri
Male 23
Al-Qarara / Khan Younis
Militant

954
Usama Mohammed Ahmed Juma’a
Male 29 Driver
Al-Twam area/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Al-Isra’a Neighborhood/ Northern Gaza
Militant

955
Hesham Mahmoud Deeb Senan (Mansour)
Male 23 Worker
Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza

JANUARY 10, 2009

956
Sufyan Abdul Hay Juda Abed Rabbu
Male 25 Worker
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

957
Ahmed Subhi Khalaf Ahel
Male 21 Policeman
Al-Yarmouk Street/ Gaza
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza
Militant

958
Younis Mohammed Ahmed Hamad
Male 19 Hairdresser
Al-Shati Refugee Camp/ Gaza
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza
Militant

959
Amir Yousif Mahmoud al-Mansi
Male 25 Engineer/ member of the Civil Defense
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Rimal

960
Sami Mohammed Saleh Abed Rabbu
Male 25
‘Amer Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

961
Samed Mahfouz Mahmoud Abed Rabbu
Male 16 Student
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

962
Ana’am Abed Darwish Baba
Female 32 Housewife
Near al-Ansar Mosque/ al-Barrawi area/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

963
Ramez Jamal Faraj Abed Rabbu
Male 38 Worker
The Court Street/ Jabalia / Northern Gaza

964
Yusri Mahmoud Juda Abed Rabbo
Male 19 Worker
The Court Street/ Jabalia / Northern Gaza

965
Hanan Fathi Qdeih ak-Najjar
Female 41 Housewife
Khza’a/ Khan Younis

966
Mohammed Nafeth Mohammed al-Helu
Male 21 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

967
Mohammed Majed Ali Hussein
Male 17 Student
Al-Naser/ Gaza
Al-Mukhabarat Apartment Buildings/ Gaza

968
Tareq Ibrahim Mohammed Abu Tabikh
Male 26
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Militant

969
‘Ahed Kamel Shehada
Banar
Male 23 Employee Sheja’eya/ Gaza

970
Shadi Fathi Ahmed Jneid
Male 28 Worker
Jafa Street/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

971
Abdul Rahman Ahmed Habboush
Male 4
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

972
‘Amer Kamal Ali al-Nether
Male 15 Student
Al-Nader Steet/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia / Northern Gaza

973
Sami Bashir Abed Sa’ad
Male 32 Policeman
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
27-Dec-08
‘Arafat Police City/ Gaza

974
Ahmed Juma’a Suleiman al-Sha’er
Male 21 Student
Kherbat al-‘Adas Village/ Rafah

975
Rashid Hamdan Shehda Dheir
Male 24 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

976
Medhat Fares Mahmoud Hajjaj
Male 76 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

977
Wesam Ibrahim Mesbah Nabhan
Male 17 Student
Al-Nuzha Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia / Northern Gaza

978
‘Ata Kamal Abdul Rahman al-Dahdouh
Male 23 Policeman
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

979
Mohammed Mustafa Rebhi Abdul Khaleq Hussein Abed Rabbu
Male 18 Jobless
The Court Street/ Jabalia / Northern Gaza

980
Abdul Mu’ti Rateb Abdul Mu’ti Salman
Male 22 Worker
Al-Khazan Neibourhood/ Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza

981
Abdul Hakim Khader Mohammed Al- Sultan
Male 15 Student
Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza

982
Ibrahim Mohammed Ghali ‘Asaleya
Male 42
‘Asaleya Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

983
Ali Kamal Ali al-Nether
Male 11 Student
Al-Naser Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia / Northern Gaza

984
Izz Addin Ali ‘Awad al-Burs
Male 17 Student
Al-Nouri Tower/ Nuseirat/ Middle Gaza

985
Hassan Mohammed Mahmoud Harb
Male 22
Block 3/ al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza
Militant

986
Amina Nafeth Mohammed al-Helu
Female 14 Student
Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza

987
Ahmed Hamed Hassan Abu ‘Eita
Male 24 Policeman
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
03-Jan-09
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

988
Bayan Khaled Ibrahim Khalif
Male 13 Student
Beit Lahiya Housing Project / Northern Gaza

989
Ibrahim Mohammed Mustafa Abu Hmeidan
Male 74
‘Asaleya Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

990
Randa Jamal Faraj Abed Rabbu
Female 43 Housewife
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

991
Sami Mohammed Ahmed Saleh
Male 32 Worker
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

992
Mohammed Jaber Mohammed ‘Eleyan
Male 16 Student
Aslan Street/ Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza

993
Rami Jamal Ramadan Salman
Male 24 University student
Al-Khazan Neibourhood/ Beit Lahiya / Northern Gaza

994
Daoud Mohammed Ghali ‘Asaleya
Male 35
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

995
Fatma Mohammed Ahmed Tbeil
Female 82 Housewife
Nuseirat New Camp/ Middle Gaza

996
Sami ‘Umar Sa’id Salman
Male 37
Beit Lahia / Northern Gaza

JANUARY 11, 2009

997
Ala’a Addin Fathi Saleh Bashir
Male 42 Jobless
‘Amer Housing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

998
Abdul Rahman Tawfik Mustafa al-Kashif
Male 20 Student
Sheikh ‘Ejleen/ Gaza
Militant

999
TasnimYaser Jaber al-Rafati
Female 2.5
Mas’oud Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1000
Muhannad Mazen Jamil al-Naji
Male 19
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Sheikh ‘Ejleen/ Gaza
Militant

1001
Jamila Hassan Zyada Zyada
Female 77 Housewife
‘Amer Housing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1002
Zakareia Hamed Khamis al-Samouni
Male 8 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
04-Jan-09

1003
Abdullah Arafat ‘Eid Shamalakh
Male 37
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza
Militant

1004
Mahmoud Ahmed Abdul Fattah Shamalakh
Male 28
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza
Militant

1005
Khawla Ahmed Ramadan Ghaben
Female 15 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1006
Sahar Ahmed Ramadan Ghaben
Female 17 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Izbat Dawwas

1007
Belal Yahya Mohammed Khalaf
Male 19 Jobless
Near al-Twam Roundabout/ ‘Amer Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1008
Ibrahim Yousif Mohammed Hamdan
Male 18
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza
Militant

1009
Fatma Mohammed Rushdi Ma’arouf
Female 16 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1010
Ibrahim ‘Ayesh Taha Suleiman
Male 21 Student
‘Amer Housing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1011
Musa’ab Abdul Mohsen Ali Khader
Male 14 Student
Jafa Street/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1012
Mohammed Mansour Shokri Sa’ada
Male 20
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza
Militant

1013
Suhaib Ala’a Addin Fathi Bashir
Male 20 Student
‘Amer Housing Project/ Northern Gaza

1014
Ibrahim Mohammed Hussein Khalaf
Male 40 Worker
Near al-Twam Roundabout/ ‘Amer Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1015
Rami Mohammed Sa’id Abu al-‘Ata
Male 29
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Militant

1016
Jihad Rashad Sha’aban Dallul
Male 16 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
03-Jan-09

1017
Lamia’a Hassan Rashid Bashir
Female 42 Housewife
‘Amer Housing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1018
Fares Tala’at Asa’ad Hammouda
Male 2
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1019
Wajih Ahmed Wasfi Mushtaha
Male 24
Al-Sha’af/ Gaza
Militant

1020
Mohammed Abdullah Mustafa al-Sha’er
Male 25 Worker
Msabbeh Village/ Rafah
Kherbat al-‘Adas Village/ Rafah

1021
Dalal ‘Ashour Asa’ad Aal-Qatati “Hannouna”
Female 50
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1022
Mahmoud Jamal Hassan Mohammadin
Male 16 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1023
Ali Ishaq Ali Shamalakh
Male 22
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza
Militant

1024
‘Isam Ishaq Ali Shamalakh
Male 22
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza
Militant

1025
Ramzi Rafe’ Matar Abu Ghanima
Male 21
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza
Militant

1026
Fathi Shaiboub Ahmed al-Shenbari
Male 21 Jobless
Al-Amal Neighborhood/ Beit Hanoun/ Northern Gaza
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza
Militant

1027
Nour Mohammed Nour Addin ‘Emeish
Male 24 Student
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis
Militant

1028
Ibrahim Mahmoud Ahmed al-Jundi
Male 20 Jobless
Al-Sha’af/ Gaza

1029
Mohammed Nasir Abu Jame’ Younis
Male 17 Student
Bani Sheila/ Khan Younis

1030
Mohammed Tala’at Asa’ad Hammouda
Male 17 Student
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza

1031
Munther Mahmoud Mohammed al-Jundi
Male 34 Jobless
Al-Sha’af/ Gaza

1032
Amal Najib Mohammed Alloush
Female 12 Student
Near Abu Shbak Clinic/ Mas’oud Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1033
Ala’a Hamed Mohammed Abu Jame’
Male 20 University student
Bani Sheila/ Khan Younis

1034
Mohammed Abed Taher al-Jalb
Male 67 Jobless
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza

1035
Baha’a Khaled Abdul Mune’m ‘Abed
Male 26
Al-Jurun area/ Jabalia / Northern Gaza

1036
Haitham Yasser Yousif Ma’arouf
Male 11 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1037
Amal Ahmed Yasin al-Madhoun
Female 22 University student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
09-Jan-09

1038
Usama Khaled Hussein Abu Rjeila
Male 17 Student
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

JANUARY 12, 2009

1039
Ferial Kamal Mahmoud al-Banna
Female 24 Jobless
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1040
Mustafa Juma’a Ibrahim al-Basha
Male 20 Student
Haifa Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1041
Jabr Hussein Helmi Habib
Male 50 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1042
Khalil Ahmed Ghali Abu al-Kheir
Male 22
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Palestine Sequare/ Gaza
Militant

1043
Usama Ayoub Yousif al-Seifi
Male 24
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1044
Ayat Kamal Mahmoud al-Banna
Female 12 Student
Al-Nazla/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1045
Ayman Faraj Habib Shaldan
Male 35 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1046
Issa Abdul Rahim Saleh
Male 29 Physician / member of military medical services
Jabalia / Northern Gaza

1047
Ahmed Ibrahim Mohammed Abu Jazar
Male 18 Student
Abu Bakr al-Seddiq/ Rafah

1048
Abdul Rahman Mohammed ‘Ateya Ghaben
Male 15 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1049
Mohammed Jamal Mshamekh Nassar
Male 25
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Militant

1050
Mohammed Lutfi Mahmoud al-Hor
Male 19 Student
Block O/ Rafah
Abu Bakr al-Seddiq/ Rafah
Militant

1051
Sha’aban Abdul Moawla Sha’aban al-Ghurra
Male 29
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1052
‘Anan Nemer Sha’aban Mansour
Male 44 Driver
Jabalia / Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1053
Fad Allah ‘Imad Hassan al-Najjar
Male 2
Block 2/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1054
Sa’ad Mohammed Abdullah Hassan
Male 21 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1055
Mohammed Habib Diab Abu Lubbad
Male 20
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1056
Ehsan Fawzi Nazmi al-Nadim
Male 33
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1057
Ala’a Addin Munther Abdul Ra’ouf al-Shafi
Male 27 Worker
Rimal/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1058
Mohammed Mu’in ‘Ata al-Ketnani
Male 18 Policeman
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
27-Dec-08
‘Arafat Police City/ Gaza

1059
Madallah Ahmed Abu Rukba
Female 81 Housewife
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1060
Abdullah Sa’id Saleh al-‘Imawi
Male 22 Nurse /member of military medical services
Sheja’eya

1061
Tareq Fadel Abdullah Ja’afar
Male 24
Palestine Sequare/ Gaza
Militant

1062
Mohammed ‘Adnan Khalaf al-Haddad
Male 21 Blacksmith
Al-Zaytoon

1063
‘Afaf Rabi’ Hassan Juma’a
Female 30 Housewife
Jabalia / Northern Gaza
Al-Saftawi area/ Northern Gaza

1064
Sharif Sami Ghali Abu al-Kheir
Male 23
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Gaza Minicipality
Militant

1065
Sa’id Mahmoud Hassan al-‘Umary
Male 34 Employee
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
06-Jan-09

1066
Nasha’at Ra’ed al-Firi
Male 12 Student
Jabalia / Northern Gaza

1067
Mamdouh Walid Asa’ad Shhiebar
Male 18 Student
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Al-Sena’a Street/ Gaza

1068
‘Eid ‘Oda al-Shandi
Male 30 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1069
Raji Rushdi Mahmoud Dalloul
Male 21
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1070
Mahmoud Ahmed Fares Juha
Male 16
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1071
Hassan Mohammed Ali Eshteiwi
Male 64 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1072
Mohammed Hassan Badawi al-B|arrawi
Male 22 Trader
‘Amer Housing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1073
Mahmoud Salamah Mohammed
Male 24
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Al-Rayes Hamada Mountain/ Gaza
Militant

1074
Khaled Hassan Ahmed al-‘Abed
Male 20 Student
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza
Al-‘Atatra area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1075
Younis Mohammed Younis al-Sherbasi
Male 24 Employee
Al-Soudaneya area/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1076
Eyad Taher Ahmed Shehada
Male 17 Student
Al-Nazla area/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1077
Naji Ramzi Yousif Mustafa Meet
Male 21 Jobless
Block 4/ al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza
06-Jan-09

JANUARY 13, 2009

1078
Asa’ad Sa’adi Abdul Fattah Ahmed
Male 24 University student
Al-Saftawi area/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1079
Mohammed Abdul Mu’ti Hamad Abu Sneima
Male 31
Al-Shuka Village/ Rafah
Militant

1080
Munir Abdul Aziz Mohammed Abu Sneima
Male 25 Farmer
Al-Shuka Village/ Rafah
Al-Naser Neighborhood/ Rafah
Militant

1081
Abdul Rahman Ibrahim Tawfiq Jaballah
Male 14 Student
Al-Sekka Street/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1082
Mamdouh Msa’ed Mohammed Qdeih
Male 17 Student
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1083
Abdul Majid Shehada Abdul Khaleq Khader
Male 78 Guard
Beit Hanoun/ Northern Gaza
Eastern Road

1084
Hassan Na’im Hassan Abu Hasira
Male 37 Worker
Al-Mansheya Street/ Gaza
11-Jan-09
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1085
Ala’a Hamed Mohammed Abu Rida
Male 20 University student
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1086
Ala’a Khaled Khalil al-Najjar
Female 15 Student
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1087
Ashraf Hamdi Mohammed ‘Ayyad
Male 22 Farmer
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1088
Hani Mohammed Abdullah Abu Rayyan
Male 25 Jobless
?Aslan Neighborhood/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1089
Mahmoud Mohammed Mahmoud Jaballah
Male 14 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1090
Mazen Fayez Mohammed al-Sherbasi
Male 25
‘Amer Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1091
Mohammed Maher Ahmed al-Zenati
Male 17 Student
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza
Al-Andalus Hotel/ Gaza

1092
Belal Mohammed Kamel Diba
Male 21 Student
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Militant

1093
Ghassan Ibrahim Mahmoud Abu Zer
Male 25 Jobless
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1094
Mohammed Nader Khalil Abu Sha’aban
Male 17 Student
Rimal/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Militant

1095
Suleiman Juma’a Ibrahim ‘Emeish
Male 19 Student
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1096
Fathi Yousif Fathi al-Mzeini
Male 19 Student
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Militant

1097
Yousif Mohammed Ahmed al-Farahta
Male 17 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1098
Rawheya Ahmed Suleiman al-Najjar
Female 45 Housewife
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1099
Ali ‘Umar Ali al-Tannani
Male 24
Al-Twam Area/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1100
Mohammed Jamil Abdullah Qdeih
Male 15 Student
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1101
Yahya Jamil Mesbah ‘Ayyad
Male 30 Worker
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1102
Basem TAla’at Abdul
Male 12 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
Nabi Northern Gaza Camp

1103
Khalil Hamdan Ahmed al-Najjar
Male 75 Farmer
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1104
Ibrahim Isma’il Mohammed Dababsheh
Male 22 Employee
Al-Twam area/ ‘Amer Housing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1105
Mahmoud Suleiman Mahmoud al- Najjar
Male 55 Jobless
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1106
Murad Rezeq Jamil Tanbura
Male 27 Jobless
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1107
Na’el Rajab Mohammed Ali
Male 34 Employee
‘Amer Housing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1108
Ibrahim Rafiq Saber Abu al-Kheir
Male 27
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1109
Usama Ahmed al-‘Absi
Male 20 Student
‘Amer Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1110
Majdi Nahed Harb Eselim al-Bassous
Male 15 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1111
Mohammed Khalil Ibrahim Abu Leila
Male 20 University student
Al-Maqqousi area/ Jabalia/ /Northern Gaza
‘Amer Housing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1112
Hazem Khaled Mahmoud ‘Ayyad
Male 28 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Salah Addin Street/ Gaza
Militant

1113
Amjad Fadel Abdullah Abu Rayyan
Male 24 Jobless
Aslan Neighborhood/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1114
Mohammed Khalil Diab al-Tatar
Male 28 Jobless
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza
Militant

1115
Ra’ed Ahmed Mohammed al-Safadi
Male 21 Jobless
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Militant

1116
Nabil Kamal Mohammed Abu Samra (Mekhraq)
Male 19 Government employee
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1117
Hassan Mohammed Mohammed Abu Zamar
Male 22
Al-Karam Apartment Buildings/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1118
Kamel Jamil Kamel al-Sarhi
Male 22 Student
Al-Maqqousi Apartment Buildings/ Gaza
Al-Soudaneya area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1119
Mohammed Na’im ‘Ata
Male 25 Policeman
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
‘Arafat Police City/ Gaza

1120
Yasser Abdullah Mousa Qdeih
Male 36 Worker
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1121
Mo’men Ahmed Juma’a al-Smeiri
Male 22 Student
Al-Qarara/ Khan Younis
Al-Zanna area/ Khan Younis

1122
Saddam Jamil Salim Abdul Nabi
Male 19
Al-Falouja area/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1123
Mahmoud Sa’id Mohammed al-Sha’er
Male 47 Money changer
Khan Younis

1124
Feras Fayez Kamel Abu Samra
Male 17 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1125
Mohammed Zaki Ahmed (Abu ‘Oda) Abu Teir
Male 20 Student
Abasan al-Kabira/ Khan Younis

1126
Mustafa Mohammed Nasser Tawfiq al-‘Ashi
Male 17 Student
‘Amer Housing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1127
Mohammed Medhat Harb Eslim al-Bassous
Male 10 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1128
Nedal Mohammed Hussein Abu Rida
Male 18 Student
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1129
‘Ammar Fadel al-Abed Sa’ad
Male 25 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1130
Ahmed Kamal Hammouda al-Borlu
Male 23 Policeman
Al-Naser/ Gaza
Near al-Khuzundar Petrol Station/ Al-Soudaneya area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1131
Hatem Mousa Deeb Abu Daf
Male 24
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1132
Yasser Shehab Addin ‘Ukasha
Male 27 Egyptian
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1133
Yousif ‘Umar Mohammed Lubbad
Male 23 University student
‘Amer Housing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1134
Na’im Abdullah Ali Abu Rayyan
Male 54 jobless
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1135
Mohammed ‘Adel Khalil al-Ashkar
Male 29 Worker
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1136
Mohammed Ala’a Addin Falah al-Sawafiri
Male 14
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1137
Rasha Ahmed Khalil al-Skeiri Abu Jame’
Female 21 Housewife
Al-Qarara/ Khan Younis
Al-Zanna area/ Khan Younis

1138
Qasem Tala’at Jamil Abdul Nabi
Male 7 Student
Al-Falouja area/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1139
Mohammed Maher Mohammed Herzalla
Male 23 Journalist in Al-Quds channel
Rimal/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1140
Ahmed Juma’a Ahmed Abu Jamous
Male 28 Jobless
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1141
Rami Mahmoud Rajab al-Qedra
Male 30
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

JANUARY 14, 2009

1142
Mahmoud Khader Mohammed Abu Kamil
Male 14 Student
Al-Mughraqa village/ Middle Gaza

1143
Ahmed Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Bursh
Male 47 Jobless
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1144
Izz Addin ‘Adel Khaled al-Farra
Male 14 Student
Al-Qarara/ Khan Younis

1145
Ramzi Rawhi Khalil ‘Awad
Male 25 Jobless
Block 1/ al-Bureij/ Nuseirat/ Middle Gaza
Militant

1146
Mohammed Izz Addin Wahid Mousa
Male 24 Worker
Al-Sabra/ Gaza

1147
Raja’a Mohammed Ghaben
Female 22
Izbat Dawwas/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1148
Mohammed al-Sayed Mohammed ‘Akkila
Male 7 Student
Al-Naser/ Gaza

1149
Shadia Ahmed Jaber (Hassan)
Female 53 Housewife
Al-Maqqousi Apartment Buildings/ Gaza

1150
Izz Addin Wahid Mohammed Mousa
Male 51
Al-Sabra/ Gaza

1151
Tawfiq Hassan Saleh al-Deiri
Male 20
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Militatnt

1152
Reyad Mohammed Ali Mahmoud al-Ra’i
Male 27 Teacher
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1153
Walid Hamouda Mohammed al-za’about
Male 32 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1154
Mohammed al-‘Abed Mohammed Naser
Male 24
Near al-Tawba Mosque/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1155
Hussein Mohammed Ahmed al-Sha’er
Male 21
Rafah
Al-Sha’af/ Gaza
Militant

1156
Hammam Mohammed Hassan al-Khudary
Male 16
Al-Sha’af/ Gaza

1157
Sa’ad Allah Matar Mas’oud Abu Halimah
Male 46 Worker
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1158
Tawfiq Fares Shehada Shehada
Male 58
Al-Fayrouz Apartment Buildings/ Gaza

1159
Mazen Asa’ad Salem al-Dhash
Male 31
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1160
Hadil Jabr Diab al-Rafati
Female 9 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1161
Abdul Rahim Sa’ad Allah Abu Halima
Male 14 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1162
Belal Jamal Isma’il Abu ‘Awwad
Male 17 Student
Block 1/ Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1163
Hassan Hesham al-Sakka
Male 21
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1164
Khalil Mohammed Mousa Bhar
Male 12 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Al-Sha’af

1165
Samir Mohammed Kamel Mkat
Male 18 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1166
Hamza Sa’ad Allah Matar Abu Halima
Male 8 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1167
Mohammed Sa’adi Sa’id ‘Eleiwa
Male 23 Worker
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
12-Jan-09

1168
Zeyad Sa’ad Allah Matar Abu Halima
Male 10 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1169
Mahmoud Bakr Mahmoud al-Za’about
Male 20 Jobless
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Militant

1170
Yousif Mustafa Hassan al-Kurdi
Male 21
Al-Shabura Refugee Camp/ Rafah
Al-Naser village/ Rafah
Militant

1171
Ahmed Izz Addin Wahid Mousa
Male 28 Dressmaker
Al-Sabra/ Gaza

1172
Usama Kayed Mohammed Abu Jayyab
Male 45 Dressmaker
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

1173
Nour Izz Addin Wahid Mousa
Male 15 Student
Al-Sabra/ Gaza

1174
Wahid Izz Addin Wahid Mousa
Male 29 Dressmaker
Al-Sabra/ Gaza

1175
Seif Addin Mohammed Ibrahim al-Firani
Male 20 Employee
Al-Nazla area/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1176
Ahmed Mustafa Ahmed Mekdad “Abu Tawaha”
Male 81
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

1177
Akram Matar Mohammed al-Seiqali
Male 54 Taxi driver
Al-Naser Neighborhood/ Rafah
‘Abasan al-Kabira/ Khan Younis

1178
Fares Mohammed Khalil ‘Abdeen
Male 31 Jobless
Al-Naser Village/ Rafah

1179
Uthman Ibrahim ‘Ateya Abu Sneima
Male 21 Farmer
Al-Naser Village/ Rafah
Militant

1180
Ahmed Mohammed Abd Rabbu al-Belbisi
Male 42 Worker
Al-Naser Village/ Rafah

1181
Jihad Ala’a Addin Abdul Rahman al-‘Amassi
Male 19 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1182
Mohammed Ibrahim Abdul Ghaffar Jahjouj
Male 25
‘Amer Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1183
Haitham ‘Adnan Mohammed Abu al-Qumsan
Male 18 Student
Opposite to ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan School/ al-Twam area/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1184
‘Ahed Fayeq ‘Ayesh Abu ‘Asi
Male 27
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Militant

1185
Hamdi Saleh Mohammed Hamada
Male 25 Civil defense member
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1186
Hanan Shaba’an ‘Urabi al- Najjar
Female 40 Jobless
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1187
‘Aisha Ibrahim al-Sayed al-Najjar
Female 4
Al-Nader Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1188
Kafa Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Nader
Female 38 Housewife
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1189
Mohammed Wajih Mohammed al-Refa’i
Male 24 Worker
Al-Sha’af/ Gaza

1190
Fadi Mohammed ‘Umar Znad
Male 25 Worker
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1191
Izz Addin Ali Mohammed al-Ashqar
Male 33 Jobless
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1192
Khalil al-‘Abed Jaber (Hassan)
Male 63 Employee
Al-Maqqousi Apartment Buildings/ Gaza

1193
Ahmed Mohammed Ayoub Khella
Male 23 University student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

JANUARY 15, 2009

1194
Mustafa Kamel Ahmed Baraka
Male 44 Jobless
Al-Berka Street/ Deir al-Balah/ Middle Gaza
Rafah

1195
Karim Mesbah Mohammed Abu Sidu
Male 16 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
13-Jan-09
Jafa Street

1196
Rajab Mahmoud Ahmed ‘Elwan
Male 27 Jobless
Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza

1197
Issa Mohammed Jabr Abu ‘Ubeida
Male 17 Student
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1198
Hala ‘Isam Ahmed al-Mnei’i
Female 1 mnth
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
13-Jan-09

1199
Fathi Daoud ‘Abed al-Kerem
Male 50 Jobless
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1200
Ala’a Fathi Daoud al-Kerem
Male 14 Student
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1201
Amir ‘Aziz Mahmoud Abu Reyala
Male 23
Al-Karama Apartment Buildings/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1202
Hamdi Ibrahim Mohammed al-Banna
Male 22
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Militant

1203
‘Uday Salama Yousif al-Haddad
Male 54 Jobless
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1204
Khader Abdul Ghaffar al-Jadba
Male 41 Teacher
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1205
Ayman Mohammed Darwish ‘Emara
Male 25 Policeman
Al-Sha’af/ Gaza
10-Jan-09

1206
Shaima’a ‘Adel Ibrahim al-Jdba
Female 9 Student
Al-Sourani Street/ Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1207
Samira ‘Afif Hassan Mousa
Female 48
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
14-Jan-09

1208
Rasmi Mohammed Ali Abu Jarir
Male 36
Al-Heker area/ Deir al-Balah/ Middle Gaza
Rafah

1209
Abdullah al-Souri
Male 24
Al-Karama area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1210
Yasmin ‘Adel Ibrahim al-Jadba
Female 15 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1211
Diab Abdul Kader Rajab Mkat
Male 48 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1212
Mohammed Mzein Mousa Sha’aban
Male 23 Worker
Al-Sabra/ Gaza

1213
Medhat ‘Abed Ali Banar
Male 23 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa

1214
Iman Abdul Kader Eslim
Female 20 Housewife
Rimal/ Gaza

1215
Ahmed Fayez Sha’aban al-Bahtiti
Male 19 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Al-Bashir Mosque/ al-Tufah/ Gaza

1216
Mohammed Nawwaf Ahmed Na’im
Male 24
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon

1217
Sa’eb Nafez Sha’aban al-Bahtiti
Male 18 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1218
Munther Ghaleb Hamdan Dughmush
Male 41 Jobless
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1219
‘Ahed Mazen Abdullah al-Ghura
Male 29 Policeman
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon

1220
‘Imad Sa’id Mohammed aa-Najjar
Male 34 Policeman
Al-Karama Apartment Buildings/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1221
Samih Mohammed Mohammed al-Na’oouq
Male 39 Employee
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1222
Zayed Mohammed Mohammed Jneid
Male 30 Member of military medical services
Al-Qerem Roundabout/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1223
Leila Rashid Wahdan Abu Aqlein
Female 66 Housewife
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1224
Bara’a ‘Ata Hassan Ermeilat
Female 1
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1225
Ramadan Sha’aban al-Barrawi al-Faluji
Male 23 Jobless
Al-Sha’af/ Gaza
Militant

1226
Louay Jabr ‘Ata Hussein
Male 20 University student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
14-Jan-09
Al-Salatin area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1227
Ahmed ‘Ata Mousa al-Ketnani
Male 19.5 Worker
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1228
Ahmed Fou’ad Mohammed Thabet
Male 26 Jobless
Berket al-Waz al-Maghazi/ Middle Gaza
Sofa Road/ Rafah

1229
‘Imad Maher Saleh Ferwana
Male 17
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1230
Ahmed Mzein Mousa Sha’aban
Male 21 Jobless
Al-Sabra/ Gaza

1231
‘Adel Sabri Abu al-‘Own
Male 27
Al-Karama area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1232
Mohammed Ahmed Abdullah Saleh
Male 62 Jobless
Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza

1233
Amal ‘Ayad ‘Oda (Ermeilat)
Female 30 Housewife
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1234
Mohammed Zeyad Ibrahim Abu ‘Abdu
Male 24
Al-Karama Apartment Buildings/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1235
Abdul Latif Mohammed Mohammed al-Na’ouq
Male 52 Teacher
Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza

1236
Mohammed Ahmed Mahmoud Abdullah
Male 63 Jobless
Al-Twam area/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1237
Mohammed Issa Ahmed al-Shrafi
Male 27
Al-Shati Refugee Camp/ Gaza
Al-Karama area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1238
Sabrin ‘Ata Hassan Ermeilat
Female 14 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1239
Yahya Mahmoud al-‘Abed al-Quqa
Male 24 Jobless
Al-Shati Refugee Camp/ Gaza
Al-Soudaneya area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1240
Suheil Younis Ibrahim al-Safadi
Male 18 Student
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Al-Tufah

1241
‘Aisha ‘Eid ‘Ayyad al-Bahri
Female 70 Housewife
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1242
Arij ‘Ata Hassan Ermeilat
Female 2 mnths
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1243
Mohammed Salem al-Na’ouq
Male 75 Retired
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1244
Ala’a ‘Uday Salama al-Haddad
Female 15 Student
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1245
Ahmed Zuheir Abdul Hamid al-‘Aloul
Male 21 Student
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Militant

1246
Eyad Mohammed Seyam
Male 35 Jobless
Al-Yarmouq Street/ Gaza

1247
Sa’id Mohammed Sha’aban Seyam
Male 48 Legislative Council Memebr
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

1248
Jamal Taha Mohammed Mghames
Male 49 Employee
Al-Maqqousi Apartment Buildings/ Gaza
14-Jan-09

1249
Mahmoud Zuheir Abdul Hamid al-‘Aloul
Male 18 Worker
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Militant

1250
Zuheir Abdul Hamid Ramadan al-‘Aloul
Male 47
Al-Sabra/ Gaza

1251
Hussam Mohammed Sha’aban Eslim
Male 7 Student
Northern Rimal/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon

1252
Ahmed Mohammed Sha’aban Eslim
Male 13 Student
Northern Rimal/ Gaza

1253
Hamdan Jalal Jamil Dughmush
Male 19 Student
Southern Rimal/ Gaza
Militant

1254
Zaki Rafiq Jayab Shheibar
Male 24 Policeman
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Militant

1255
Sahar Ali Sha’aban Eslim
Female 17 Student
Al-Yarmouq Street/ Northern Rimal/ Gaza

1256
Tamer Reyad Ibrahim Faza’a
Male 17 Student
Sheikh ‘Ejlin/ Gaza
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Militant

1257
Na’im Khader Salman Hamada
Male 20 Blacksmith
Al-Sahaba Neighborhood/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Militant

1258
Bilal Mzeinn Mousa Sha’aban
Male 19 Worker
Al-Sabra/ Gaza

1259
Mohammed Faraj Sa’id Dughmush
Male 35
Southern Rimal/ Gaza
Militant

1260
Ehsan Mohammed Zaki al-Haddad
Female 45 Housewife
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1261
Hanin Fadel Mohammed al-Batran
Female 10 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa

1262
‘Ismat Fathi Daoud al-Qerem
Female 15 Student
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1263
Ahmed Usama Mohammed Kurtom
Male 7 Student
Northern Rimal/ Gaza

1264
Maher Khaled Ja’afar al-Beik
Male 49 Policeman
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Al-Sabra

1265
Haitham Abdul Hafez Yousif Abdul ‘Al
Male 23
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Militant

1266
Mamdouh Lutfi al-‘Abed Abu al-Ruk
Male 23 University student
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1267
Maher Hashem Hamdan Dughmush
Male 50 Jobless
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1268
Mohammed Zuheir Abdul Hamid al-‘Aloul
Male 23 Student
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Militant

1269
Abdullah Abdul Hamid Hussam Abu Mu’ammar
Male 22 Student
Rafah
14-Jan-09

1270
Shehda Fathi Shihda al-Kurd
Male 28
Yebna Refugee camp/ Rafah
Militant

1271
Hatem ‘Uday Salama al-Haddad
Male 19
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1272
Ramadan Abdul Hamid Ramadan al-‘Aloul
Male 27
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Militant

1273
Ali Kamal Badawi al-Barrawi
Male 14 Student
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Al-Nafaq Street/ Gaza

1274
Mekbel ‘Eid Salem Jarabi’a
Male 92
Al-Karama Apartment Buildings/ Nortern Gaza
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza

1275
Samer Mohammed al-‘Abed Abu ‘Aser
Male 17 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1276
Tha’er Suheil Ali Hussein
Male 19
Al-Mukhabarat Apartmetn Buildings/ Gaza

1277
Tamer Ibrahim ‘Ateya Abu ‘Aser
Male 24
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Al-Rayes Mountain/ Gaza
Militant

1278
Eyad ‘Adli Ramadan Al-Najjar
Male 25
Mas’oud Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1279
Mohammed Sa’id Mohammed Seyam
Male 22 Policeman
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

1280
Fayez Sha’aban ‘Umar al-Bahtiti
Male 42 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza

1281
Mohammed Isma’il Seyam
Male 27 Policeman
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza

1282
Samah ‘Ateya Mohammed Seyam
Female 33 Housewife
Al-Yarmouq Street/ Gaza

1283
Ahmed Mansour Husni Hassuna
Male 27 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa

1284
Mohammed Nabil Sha’aban Eslim
Male 20 Student
Al-Yarmouq Street/ Northern Rimal/ Gaza

1285
Farid Hejazi Mohammed al-Helu
Male 23 Security officer
Near al-Rahma Mosque/ al-Sena’a Street/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Militant

1286
Ahmed Ayoub ‘Isam al-Bitar
Male 31 Worker
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Militant

JANUARY 16, 2009

1287
Fayez Ali al-‘Abed Banar
Male 25 Policeman
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1288
Iman Issa Abdul Hadi al-Batran
Female 11 Student
Block 4/ al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

1289
Hussam Mohammed Ali Abu Daqqa
Male 24 Farmer
Al-Fukhari village/ Khan Younis

1290
Ra’afat Khalil Hamdan Abu al-‘Ela
Male 47 Plumber
Bani Sheila/ Khan Younis

1291
Ibrahim Mohammed Kassab Shurrab
Male 18 University student
Al-Fukhari village/ Khan Younis

1292
Ahmed al-‘Abed Ali Banar
Male 17 Student
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1293
Kassab Mohammed Kassab Shurab
Male 28 Engineer
Al-Fukhari village/ Khan Younis

1294
Naser Yusif Abdul Hadi al-Siefi
Male 41 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1295
Hashem Rabah Muhi Addin al-Hetu
Male 47 Trader
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
Palestine Sequare/ Gaza

1296
Abdul Rahman Haitham Juda Zumlut
Male 19 Policeman
Al-Karama Apartment Building/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1297
Rawan Isma’il Mohammed Al-Najjar
Female 7 Student
Gaza Old Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1298
Belal Issa Abdul Hadi al-Batran
Male 6 Student
Block 4/ al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

1299
Ala’a Sa’id Khamis Modad
Male 40
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1300
‘Umar Mahmoud Ramadanal- Mranakh
Male 18 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1301
Malak Salama Abdul Hay Abu ‘Eita
Female 3
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1302
Hamouda Zayed Ahmed Thabet
Male 21 Farmer
Al-Naser village/ Rafah
Militant

1303
Mohammed Usama Abdul Fattah ‘Eqeilan
Male 21 Jobless
Al-Naser/ Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1304
Anwar Salman Rushdi Abdul Hai Abu ‘Eita
Male 7 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1305
Zakia Abdul Hai Ali Abu ‘Eita
Female 50 Housewife
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1306
Maiar Izzi Addin Mohammed Abu al-‘Eish
Female 15 Student
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ East of Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1307
Noura Shhab Addin Mohammed Abu al-‘Eish
Female 17 Student
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ East of Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1308
Bisan Izzi Addin Mohammed Abu al-‘Eish
Female 21 University student
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ East of Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1309
Aya Izzi Addin Abu al-‘Eish
Female 14 Student
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ East of Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1310
Belal Tysir Taha Mousa
Male 29 Policeman
Opposite to al-Yazji Mosque/ al-Nafaq Street/ Gaza
Militant

1311
Usama Jamal Mohammed ‘Ubeid
Male 21 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
04-Jan-09
Beer al-Na’aja area/ Northern Gaza

1312
Mohammed ‘Atef Mohammed Abu al-Husni
Male 12 Student
Gaza Old street/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1313
Izz Addin Issa Abdul Hadi al-Batran
Male 3
Block 4/ al-Bureij/ Middle gaza

1314
Ashraf Rebhi al-‘Abed Banar
Male 35 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1315
Ahmed Abdul Hay Hassan al-Safadi
Male 24
Al-Daraj/ Gaza
15-Jan-09
Al-Nafaq Street/ Gaza
Militant

1316
Fadi Hassan Khader Hassanein
Male 24
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza
Al-Shati Refugee camp/ Gaza
Militant

1317
Abdullah Nawwaf Ahmed Na’im
Male 19
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1318
Ehsan Issa Abdul Hadi al-Batran
Male 14 Student
Block 4/ al-Bureij/ Middle Gaza

1319
Al-Mu’taz Bellah Abdul Muttaleb Zidan Dahman
Male 23 Student
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
15-Jan-09
Militant

1320
Subhi Mohammed Khamis Modad
Male 50 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1321
Hussam Hassan Rajab al-Jmasi
Male 35 Worker
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Militant

1322
Musa’ab Subhi Mohammed Modad
Male 17
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Tal al-Hawa

1323
‘Abed Ali ‘Abed Banar
Male 48 Jobless
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1324
Mahmoud Khader Fadel Abu Salem
Male 19 Jobless
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
14-Jan-09
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
Militant

1325
Ammar Mohammed Ahmed Hassouna
Male 19 Student
Al-Shati Refugee camp/ Gaza
Al-Soudaneya area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1326
Ahmed Salamah Abdul Hay Abu ‘Eita
Male 10 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1327
Mohammed Yasser Mansour al-Qerem
Male 22
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
Militant

1328
Abdullah Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Juju
Male 17 Student
Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza

1329
Fayez Sa’id Faraj Shamali
Male 52 Worker
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1330
Islam Issa Abdul Hadi al-Batran
Female 14 Student
Block 4/ al-Bureij/ Middle gaza

1331
Manal Hassan Ali al-Batran (al-Sha’arawi)
Female 32 Housewife
Block 4/ al-Bureij/ Middle gaza

1332
Nassar Abdul Mahdi Mtawe’
Male 85
Al-Mughraqa Village/ Middle Gaza

1333
Shadi al-‘Abed Ali Banar
Male 28
Sheja’eya/ Gaza

1334
Muhannad ‘Amer Khalil al-Jdeili
Male 8 Student
Block 7/ al-Bureij/ Middle gaza

JANUARY 17, 2009

1335
Mohammed Saleh Sa’id Abu Daiya
Male 52 Farmer
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1336
‘Ateya Talab Abed Rabbu Abu al-Hsein
Male 45 Employee
Al-Naser Village/ Rafah

1337
Mohammed Abdullah Salama Abu ‘Eteiwi
Male 16 Student
Nuseirat New Refugee Camp/ Middle Gaza

1338
Fatma Mahmoud Abdallah ‘Ubeid
Female 55 Jobless
East of Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza

1339
Musa’ab Mohammed Ali Abu al-‘Amarin
Male 22
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza
Al-Karama Apartment Buildings/ Gaza
Militant

1340
Jabr Mohammed Mohammed al-Dawawsa
Male 22
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
06-Jan-09

1341
Munir Sami Amin Ahmed Sheibar
Male 15 Student
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
07-Jan-09

1342
Na’im Mohammed Shehada
Male 52 Jobless
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1343
Usama Mohammed Abdullah Khella
Male 30 Worker
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
13-Jan-09

1344
Abdullah Malek Addin al-Hajj Ali
Male 22 Student
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1345
Maryam Abdul Rahman Shaker Abu Daher
Female 87 Jobless
Al-Isra’a Neighborhood/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1346
Eyad Abdul Hay al-Najjar
Male 25 Jobless
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza

1347
Mohammed Mohammed Shehda al-Ashkar
Male 4
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1348
Nour Addin Mohammed Jamil Hamada
Male 22 Employee
‘Amer Husing Project/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1349
Rami Nahed Mohammed Abu ‘Ubeid
Male 25
Abu Eskandar area/ Gaza
Al-Mukhabarat Apartment Buildings/ al-Soudaneya area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1350
Anwar Marwan Fayeq Shehada
Female 14 Student
Al-Ghabbari Neighborhood/ Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza

1351
Fawzeya Fawwaz Ahmed Saleh
Female 4
Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza

1352
Ahmed Fawwaz Ahmed Saleh
Male 5
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1353
Fathi Mohammed Abdallah ‘Ubeid
Male 63 Trader
Al-Karama Street/ Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza

1354
Belal Mohammed Sehda al-Ashkar
Male 6 Student
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1355
Asil Munir Matar al-Kafarna
Female 1
Al-Amal Neighborhood/ Beit Hanoun/ Northern Gaza

1356
Khaled Hafez Khaled al-Turk
Male 25 Cypercafé owner
Al-Karama Apartment Buildings/ Northern Gaza
‘Amer Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
Militant

JANUARY 18, 2009

1357
‘Abed Juma’a Mahmoud ‘Ayyad
Male 80 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1358
Wa’el Khalil Mesbah Aal-‘Attar
Male 33 Worker
Al-‘Atatra area/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1359
Akram Khader Abdul Kader Ma’arouf
Male 46 Worker
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1360
Ibrahim Mohammed Mousa al-‘Ir
Male 12 Student
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza

1361
Rakan Mohammed Mousa al-‘Ir
Male 5
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1362
Feda’a Mohammed Mousa al-‘Ir
Female 18 Student
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza

1363
Mohammed Mousa Hassan al-‘Ir
Male 43 Worker
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ East of Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1364
Entesar Farid Suleiman al-Masri
Female 35 Housewife
Al-Masreyen Street/ Beit Hanoun/ Northern Gaza

1365
Nazira Mohammed Khaled Abu al-Kas
Female 61 Housewife
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1366
Khamis Nemer Abdul Latif Zughra
Male 22
Al-‘Atatra area/ Northern Gaza
Al-Karama area/ Northern Gaza

1367
Mohammed Abdul Hadi Mohammed Daher
Male 22 Policeman
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza
Civil Administration Headquarters/ Northern Gaza

1368
Amjad Majed Subhi al-‘Attar
Male 23
Al-‘Atatra area/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1369
Iman Nemer Salman al-‘Ir
Female 27 Housewife
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ East of Jabalia/ Northern
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza

1370
Bassam ‘Azmi Mohammed al-Hattab
Male 25 Worker
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon

1371
Hakma Abdul Rahman Mustafa al-‘Attar
Female 78 Housewife
Al-‘Atatra area/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

1372
Angham Ra’afat Atalla al-Masri
Female 10 Student
Al-Masreyen Street/ Beit Hanoun/ Northern Gaza

1373
Mahdeya Suleiman Mohammed ‘Ayyad
Female 70 Housewife
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza

1374
Salima Mesleh Subhi Sallam
Female 70 Jobless
Al-Karama Street/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Opposite to al-Ja’el Petrol Station/ al-Karama Street/ Northern Gaza

1375
Maher Abdul Azim Abu Rejeila
Male 24 Worker
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis

1376
Issa Mohammed ‘Eyada Ermeilat
Male 12 Student
Al-Shaboura Refugee Camp/ Rafah

1377
Abdul Rahman Ahmed Abed Rabbu al-‘Atawna
Male 16 Student
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1378
Anwar Salah Ibrahim Abu Tleikh
Male 21 Student
Al-Shuka Village/ Rafah
17-Jan-09
Al-Naser village/ Rafah

1379
Mohammed Naser Hashem al-Tatar
Male 22 Jobless
Al-‘Atatra area/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Al-Karama area/ Northern Gaza

1380
Na’im ‘Aref Eshteiwi
Male 49 Jobless
Al-Tufah/ Gaza
Al-Zaytoon

1381
Fayez Ahmed Mohammed Abu Warda
Male 30
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1382
Eyad Khamis Abed al-Banna
Male 21 Jobless
Al-Nazla area/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1383
Mahmoud Khader Abed Bahar
Male 21
‘Amer Housing Project/ Northern Gaza
16-Jan-09
Al-Karama Roundabout/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1384
Ibrahim Ahmed Abdullah ‘Elwan
Male 32 Jobless
Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1385
Ibrahim Saber Rabi’ Jneid
Male 21 Student
Saleh Dardona Street/ Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1386
Isma’il Abdul Rahim Rajab Suleiman
Male 20 Student
Al-Qasasib Street/ Northern Gaza
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1387
Yousif Anwar Sha’aban Dakka
Male 21 Student
Near Abu ‘Ubeida Ibn al-Jarrah School/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1388
Rezeq Salim Hussein Abu al-Kas
Male 63 Jobless
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
Izbat ‘Abed Rabbu/ Northern Gaza

1389
Fatma ‘Awad Khalil Ghaben
Female 62 Housewife
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza

JANUARY 19 – MARCH 3, 2009

1390
Abdullah Naser Abdullah al-Sdoudi
Male 7 Student
Near the Ahli Club/ Nuseirat/ Middle Gaza
19-Jan-09 18-Jan-09

1391
Ala’a Addin Ashraf Khaled Abu al-Kumbuz
Male 24
Sheja’eya/ Gaza
19-Jan-09 27-Dec-08
Near Ansar roundabout/ Gaza
Militant

1392
Jamal ‘Ata Mohammed al-Habashi
Male 43
Employee Sheja’eya/ Gaza
19-Jan-09 15-Jan-09
Al-Sha’af

1393
Mahmoud Hussein Mohammed Matar
Male 27 Jobless
Al-Naser/ Gaza
20-Jan-09 18-Jan-09
Al-‘Amoudi area/ Northern Gaza

1394
‘Imad Abdullah Ahmed Mekdad
Male 20 Student
Nuseirat New Refugee Camp/ Middle Gaza
20-Jan-09 15-Jan-09
Nuseirat / Middle Gaza
Militant

1395
Khamis Nemer Abdul Latif Zughra
Male 22 Worker
Sheikh Radwan/ Gaza
20-Jan-09 17-Jan-09
Al-Twam area/ Northern Gaza
Militant

1396
Belal Subhi Mohammed Nabhan
Male 26
University student
Jabalia/ Northern Gaza
21-Jan-09 17-Jan-09
Militant

1397
Tamer ‘Umar Isma’il al-Louh
Male 17 Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
21-Jan-09 12-Jan-09
Militant

1398
‘Eid ‘Eyada Salem Abu Rabi’
Male 59 Teacher
Al-Mughraqa village/
Middle Gaza
22-Jan-09 04-Jan-09

1399
Abdullah Mohammed Hamdan Abu al-Ruq
Male 17 Student
Khza’a Village/ Khan Younis
23-Jan-09 11-Jan-09

1400
Mohammed Mahmoud Mohammed Jarbou’a
Male 21 Worker
Al-Shati Refugee Camp/ Gaza
25-Jan-09 17-Jan-09

1401
Nansy Sa’id Mohammed Waked
Female 6 mnths
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
25-Jan-09 18-Jan-09

1402
Mohammed Mahmoud Mohammed al-Bori’
Male 40 Policeman
Tal al-Za’atar/ Northern Gaza
26-Jan-09 27-Dec-08
Arafat Police City/ Gaza

1403
Mohammed Yahya Sa’id Baba
Male 11 Student
Near al-Ansar Mosque/ al-Barrawi area/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
26-Jan-09 10-Jan-09

1404
Sedqi Isma’il Mohammed Hammad
Male 26
Al-Sabra/ Gaza
27-Jan-09 04-Jan-09
Al-Katiba Mosque/ Gaza
Militant

1405
Fadi Tysir Mustafa Abdullah
Male 23 Student
Al-Nuzha Street/ Jabalia Town/ Northern Gaza
28-Jan-09 14-Jan-09

1406
Sundus Sa’id Hassan Abu Sultan
Female 4
Jabalia Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza
28-Jan-09 17-Jan-09
Refugee Camp/ Northern Gaza

1407
Adham Khamis Mohammed Nasir
Male 35 Worker
Beit Hanoun/ Northern Gaza
29-Jan-09 04-Jan-09
Jabalia / Northern Gaza

1408
Mohammed Rajab Abdu al-‘Awadi
Male 17 Jobless
Al-Daraj/ Gaza
29-Jan-09 27-Dec-08
Al-‘Abbas Police Station/ Gaza

1409
Mohammed Fayez Sa’id al-Sawafiri
Male 35 Jobless
Al-Zaytoon/ Gaza
01-Feb-09 14-Jan-09

1410
Methqal Jamal ‘Ata al-Radi’
Male 22 Employee
Al-Hatabeya Street/ Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
04-Feb-09 17-Jan-09
Militant

1411
Nay Fayez Yousif Hassan
Female 28 Student
Al-Sa’ada apartment building/ Tal al-Hawa/ Gaza
12-Feb-09 05-Jan-09

1412
Mahmoud Mohammed Abdul Rahman ‘Abed
Male 60
Deir al-Balah/ Middle Gaza
15-Feb-09 27-Dec-08

1413
Abdullah Tabil Sha’aban Eslim
Male 17 Student
Northern Rimal/ Gaza
24-Feb-09 15-Jan-09
Rimal

1414
Nihad Mohammed Fayyad Abu Kmeil
Male 29
Al-Mughraqa Village/ Middle Gaza
27-Feb-09 13-Jan-09

1415
Dima Sa’id Ahmed al-Zahal
Female 5
Beit Lahia/ Northern Gaza
03-Mar-09 07-Jan-09

I knew Black Friday, and You Sir, are no Black Friday

Posted on November 21, 2009 by Eric Verlo

If this year’s “Black Friday” fails to pull retailers out of their red ink, should the dubious protologism retire its presumption to speak for consumer confidence? I think it should. Wasn’t it really just an economist’s “for the Gipper” meme –putting the solvency of the market on the shoulders of Christmas shoppers, rallying them to pull the economy into the black, regardless if it meant spending themselves into the red? I hate it when emotion-charged phrases are usurped by pretenders. Hiroshima was “Ground Zero” before the WTC, the “Homeland” was Nazi Germany, and “Black Friday” was Robinson Crusoe’s, well, Man Friday.

“Black Friday” in general has represented whichever awful event befell that day of the week of recent memory. It may be a wonderful anti-racism step to appoint a rare positive attribution to the word “black,” but I object to its use here to exacerbate affluenza, targeted against the best efforts of sustainability educators to reframe the day-after-Thanksgiving as Buy Nothing Day. If you are a booster for consumerism, black is an accounting concept meaning profitability. But how disingenuous to expect that those outside the balance sheet should share the enthusiasm. For example, it’s not everyone’s Good Friday just because Notre Dame wins that day. Good Friday, by the way, is also called Black Friday, as is any Friday that falls on the 13th.

Below I will list history’s Black Fridays, lest nocturnal Wikipedia cobbler elves continue their PR visits to bolster the retailer claim to the term. According to “Wikipedia” the earliest citation for a shopper’s “Black Friday” is 1966. But in actuality, the expression came from Philadelphia bus drivers and policemen referring to the traffic congestion created at their city center on the busiest shopping day of the year. But Philadelphia retailers objected to the negative connotation. Perhaps as a result, the “black ink” angle surfaces, attributed to a store clerk, offering a more upbeat, chamber-of-commerce-friendly spin. Hmm.

Many people think Black Friday recalls the Stock Market Crash of 1929. It does, and they’re right to be confused about which day of the week it was in particular, because the first day of the crash became known as Black Thursday, followed by Black Friday, then the next trading days, Black Monday and Black Tuesday.

What other occasions in man’s history have warranted the dark coloration? Let’s begin with Black Sabbath:

Black Saturdays
Sept 10, 1547, disaster for Scottish defenders at Battle of Pinkie Cleugh, Scotland
Aug 6, 1621, Mass hysteria caused by dark stormy night confirming Armageddon arrived with Episcopacy, Scotland
Dec 28, 1929, Massacre of Mau demonstrators by NZ police, Samoa
June 13, 1942, Disastrous UK Battle of Gazala against German Afrika Korps
June 29, 1946, UK Operation Agatha against Zionist terrorists in Palestine
Oct 8, 1962, height of A-bomb scare, Cuban Missile Crisis
Dec 6, 1975, Beirut massacres which started Lebanese Civil War, Lebanon
July 31, 1982, worst road accident in French history, (on annual “Black Saturday” when entire of population takes to the road for vacation)
July 14, 1984, Honk Kong exchange rates fall to all time low
Aug 20, 1988, worst day of Yellowstone Fires
Jan 20, 1990, January Massacre of Azeri demonstrators by Soviet Army, Azerbaijan
Feb 7, 2009, brush fires, Victoria, Australia

Black Sundays
Feb 14, 1926, bush fires, Victoria, Australia
April 14, 1935, “Black Blizzard” over Dust Bowl, the Great Plains of US and Canada
Feb 6, 1938, fatal waves on Bondi Beach, Australia
Nov 8, 1942, Nazi extermination of Jews in Staszow, Poland
June 11, 1944, disastrous Canadian battle against German Panzers, Normandy, France
Sept 24, 1950, sunlight blocked by forest fires, Pennsylvania
Jan 2, 1955, brush fires in Southern Australia
May 2, 1982, Exxon canceled shale oil project in Parachute, Colorado
Nov 24, 1991, extreme right party ascension in Belgium
May 1, 1994, San Marino Grand Prix death of Ayrton Senna
April 26, 1998, DIA inter-terminal subway fails, Denver
Jan 21, 2001, Direct TV purged viewers who were pirating signals
Feb 18, 2001, Datona 500 death of Dale Earnhart
Dec 28, 2008, Detroit Lions finished 0-16

Black Mondays
Easter, 1209, English settlers massacred in Dublin, Ireland
April 14, 1360, Easter misfortune during Hundred Years War
Feb 8, 1886, Pall Mall Riot, London, UK
Dec 10, 1894, Newfoundland bank failure, Canada
Oct 28, 1929, Stock Market Crash, 3rd day of trading
May 27, 1935, US Supreme Court overturns National Recovery Act
Sept 19, 1977, Shutdown of Youngstown, Ohio steel mill
Nov 27, 1978, Assassination of Harvey Milk
Oct 19, 1987, global stock market crash
Oct 8, 1990, Temple Mount Massacre by Israeli IDF, Palestine

Black Tuesdays
Oct 29, 1929, Stock Market Crash
1967, brush fires in Tasmania, Australia
Oct 20, 1987, global stock market crash, because Monday is Tuesday in Australia

Black Wednesdays
Sept 16, 1992, when UK withdrew currency from European Exchange Rate Mechanism, suffering a devaluation of 3.4 billion pounds.
Nov 3, 2004, John Kerry concedes 2004 election immediately after promising to challenge polling irregularities.

Had not the US Stock Exchange been shut down on Tuesday, there would have been a Black Wednesday 1929 as well.

Black Thursdays
Feb 6, 1851, brush fires, Victoria, Australia
Oct 24, 1929, start of US Stock Market Crash
Oct 14, 1943, disastrous US-UK bombing raid over Schweinfurt, Germany
Dec 16, 1943, disastrous UK bombing raid over Berlin, Germany
Aug 24, 1995, Moscow Interbank credit market collapse, Russia
Feb 8, 1998, Black World Wide Web Protest
July 24, 2003, Guatemala City riots, Guatemala

Black Fridays
Sept 24, 1869, collapse of price of gold.
Oct 14, 1881, Eyemouth Disaster, Scotland
Nov 11, 1887, Haymarket hangings of innocent anarchists, Chicago
Nov 18, 1910, Police assault of suffragettes, London, UK
Jan 31, 1919, George Square Riot, during strike for 40hr work week, Glasgow, Scotland
Oct 25, 1929, second day of Stock Market Crash
Jan 13, 1939, bush fires in Victoria, Australia
1940 movie starring Boris Karloff
Sept 18, 1942, Bombing of Dartmouth, Devon, UK
Oct 13, 1944, Disastrous Canadian raid, Battle of the Scheldt, Belgium
Feb 9, 1945, Disastrous UK air raid, Battle of Sunnfjord, Norway
Oct 5, 1945, Hollywood Warner Brothers union riot, led to Taft-Hartley Act
May 5, 1950, Red River Flood, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Oct 7, 1977, Phillies lost to Dodgers, game 3 of National League series
Sept 8, 1978, Massacre of protesters in Tehran, led to Iranian Revolution
May 31, 1985, US-Canadian Tornado outbreak
July 31, 1987, Edmonton Tornado, Alberta Canada
March 12, 1993 Bombay Bombings
Aug 12, 2004, suppression of protests, Male, Maldives
Sept 30, 2005, Students protesters killed in Meghalaya, India
Oct 3, 2008, EESA Wall Street Bailout
–AND–
Nov 28, 2009, the first day of the Christmas shopping season, when America’s retailers balance sheets are brought out of the red.

It fits right?

Ward Churchill speaks on which settler invasion wrote the book on Apartheid

Posted on November 18, 2009 by Eric Verlo

Ward Churchill spoke in Tucson on Friday and Brenda Norrell has posted the footage. Watching the ex-CU professor speak, I can’t help but think about the university students’ loss. They’re missing the lamentably rarefied perspectives he offers of course, but more important, the inspiration gained from such an engaging luminary.

Throughout his lectures, Churchill likes to put questions back at his audience. He understands, if I can presume to project his rationale, that a mentor’s role is to bounce ideas around, and be sure his students have minds open enough to let them resonate. It’s also a sign of someone fully confident with what they are teaching. Churchill gives you the impression he’s interested in the best argument you’ve got, and I believe him, but in reality he’s going to have few peers up to the task.

When it’s time for Q and A, Prof. Churchill calls it mud-wrestling, and welcomes all shots, “even spit wads.” He draws the line at brick bats, because he says, one might bounce off his head and hit somebody else. He warns, as if he’s had practice, “because someone might get hurt. I can assure you it won’t be me.”

I wished at that moment that Tucson was not so far from Churchill’s curiously vile detractors, who attended his trial in Denver, and who hold bitch fests online about every Churchinalia for reasons unspecified. I predict they’re remunerated; the love-to-hate pretext is wearing thin, these yahoos are pro-Israeli tea-baggers. So there’s no Drunkablog or Pirate Ballerina there tonight to take the “perfessor’s” challenge. Although wouldn’t such an exchange have been simply tedious? I recall this dismal attempt mounted against “Wart” by a couple CU college Republicans, it was just embarrassing. Have Churchill’s online critics ever confronted him in person I wonder? They can spout off in the safety of anonymity, and that’s about it.

Churchill’s speech to the predominantly Anglo and O’odham border activists was about the bigger issues behind the border wall. The theme of the gathering was Apartheid in America, and Churchill demonstrated how South African Apartheid came of the successful colonial methods practiced in the United States. These were the strategies employed by the Germans in taking and settling the Eastern Front during WWII, and of course the goals of Israel in Palestine.

Churchill described how settler invasions vary from colonial administration. In the latter case, the colonizers can go home, in the former, they stay. Another distinction is critical, the settlers aren’t moving to a land and becoming part of the social system, they remain citizens of the occupying force. They bring their identity and the foreign system with them, to apply against the people indigenous to the land. The process involves two steps: displace enough of the natives to make room for yourselves, but leave just enough to serve as a labor pool, for all the building that is required of empire building. You’ve need of only a portion of the original population, to do the manual labor required of developing the land, but eventually you need them to die off. The Nazi strategy in Poland was to eleminate a great deal via war, then another mass through starvation, ill health and exposure. Methods mirrored today in Gaza. As a USA example, Churchill sited the average life expectancy of a Native American on a reservation in 1975. The age was 44.6 years old. That’s 1/3 less that the G-Pop average, equivalent to thinning the population by a third.

To cut to the quick, Churchill asked his audience how they felt about social challenges like sexism, racism, ageism, classism. All were basically in accord as being against. What’s the problem, Churchill asked. If so many are against these things, why do they persist? Then he threw imperialism into the mix, which had not been mentioned. Churchill said we cannot adequately address the others until we have a clean conscience about the land taken from America’s First Peoples. This must be the priority. First Peoples, First Nations, First Priority.

Below is the video of Friday’s Tohono O’odham event in Tucson. Take note also of the excellent speeches which followed the keynote, by Ofelia Rivas and her brother in particular.

Click ON DEMAND, then select the “Live Show Fri Nov 13 2009 06:20:55 PM” or watch it at Livestream/earthcycles.

Uzi Landau doesn’t steal Palestinian homes because there is no such thing

Posted on October 28, 2009 by Eric Verlo

DENVER- Israeli PR envoy Uzi Landau addressed CU Denver students today, the majority of whom were antagonistic to his message. Denver policemen lined the walls, altar and choir loft, as Landau went on about the mortal threat which “extremist” Islam poses to Judeo-Christian civilization. Landau likened Iran to Nazi Germany and Ahmadinejad to Hitler, but had no comparison for the nefarious and subversive terror plots which Iran has been foisting on the free world. I’m thinking perhaps, like the CIA or Mossad?

Landau entered the room strangely like a Mafia don, flanked by an entourage of black coats and security. A well dressed man and a woman who an hour earlier had been loitering behind me as I protested outside, and whom I took to be Russian when I heard them speak to each other, now appeared as part of Landau’s party.

Due to the sudden snowfall, the campus closed for the afternoon. As a result, the turnout for Landau’s speech was sparse. The security detail of Denver and campus police officers which subjected attendees to metal detectors and bag searches, and kept vigil from the sidelines, would have been disproportionate even if all the seats had been filled. One got the impression that law enforcement were there to assure the audience stayed awake and respectful. Policemen could be seen conspicuously conferring about the seating area occupied by activist Glenn Spagnuolo and his colleagues. When Glenn rose and walked forward to queue for the microphone, a handful of the officers adjusted their positions accordingly.

Glenn was responsible for pulling together voices to oppose Uzi Landau’s appearance. Glenn had a personal connection to Landau, having worked in the occupied territories like Rachel Corrie, and knew the activist who was ultimately killed by a bulldozer working under orders of Uzi Landau. Subsequent to that event, Glenn was deported to Jordan.

When Glenn announced the protest against Landau’s visit, the CU organizers were faced with additional security costs, for which they had no budget. Attempts were made to negotiate calling off the protest. Ultimately the Israeli embassy fronted the funds for the added police.

You might ask, against whom were the officers protecting Uzi Landau? Considering audience members had already been search for weapons, were the police trying to prevent a citizen’s arrest?

The good news, Israeli PR envoy Uzi Landau is not a very good speaker. His heavy accent and habit of letting his voice trail off confident the audience is hanging on his words, makes Landau a fortuitous emissary for those cheering against a military attack upon Iran. The bad news is that landau is as far right as they come, and if he’s reaching sympathetic ears, there are too many racist Americans without any understanding of international law.

I was surprised to discover that this Israeli minister’s talking points were no more nuanced than the flack we receive at this website from IDF Internet Megaphone trolls. Landau reflected the same disrespect for the people from whom lands were taken, and are still being taken. He argued that soldiers must be permitted to target insurgents regardless the civilian casualties.

Landau spoke confidently without batting an eye about the plight of Palestinians. He justified increased Israeli settlements based on Israel’s better record of land stewardship, and of course, he argued that anti-Semitism nugget: why should there be any lands forbidden to Jews? Specifically, to paraphrase: “If Israel can be 20% Palestinian, why cannot the Occupied Territories be 20% Jewish?”

Because Israel then builds walls around settlements and claims more land.

To his credit, Uzi Landau was entertainingly pugilistic in his response to audience questions. Instead of ignoring comments being made out of turn, he took them on, so confident and self-righteous he was about Israel’s actions. Even in Gaza, even in the context of over 60 years of occupation. But to Landau, the Palestinian Problem is dismissed easily. Palestinians don’t exist. They didn’t exist, they didn’t accept the offers of statehood when given the chance, their opportunity past, they never were.

Landau accused his detractors of offering no facts. He, on the other hand, came equipped with facts. One fact of his, from history: Even before it was declared a Jewish nation by the UN, the land of Israel had been in continuous possession of the Jews. So called “Palestinians” only came to the area for the jobs the Israelis offered them.

One of the best questions posed had to do with borders. If G-d promised the holy land to the Jews, which land was that precisely, as defined by what borders? For example, the UN granted land to inaugurate the nation of Israel. It didn’t include Jerusalem, nor much of to what Israel is laying claim. Does the “promised land” encompass more than Israel has even now? What can be the expected boundaries of Israel’s assumed birthright?

Dr. Landau didn’t dwell long on this polemic, except to say with a smile: “that will depend on our neighbors.”

Armed UAS drones need no defending

Posted on October 26, 2009 by Eric Verlo

I was curious about the etymology of the term “drone” applied to military (& DHS) Unmanned Aerial Surveillance aircraft, these days, mostly Armed. Obviously Armed UAS are not named after the stingless unproductive bees whose task it is to impregnate the queen, nor lazy idlers, nor clueless computer sales techies, nor thankless menial worker drones. Anyone who’s been around Radio Controlled model planes knows drones are named for the sound they make, a steady drone as they labor across the sky. While military aerial surveillance predates the Wright Brothers, and RC model airplanes have been around for half that time, it took the advent of asymmetric warfare to open the window to military drones. Their constant buzz offering the most intractable reason.

By “asymmetric” I do not mean the US intelligence code for off-textbook warfare, for counter-insurgency methods outside von Clausewitz etiquette. I mean the inherency they obscure, war between foes lopsided.

Look at a drone’s design. It’s more Gossamer Condor than military aircraft. Obviously an unmanned vehicle comprises fewer mechanical systems because it doesn’t need to propel, nor sustain, a crew of human beings. It might need less armature for the same reason, except of course, today’s drones are of high value in their own right. So why no armament?

Why too, no powerful jet engines or swept wings for aeronautic superiority? This drone looks about as robust as a paper glider. Laymen can distinguish bombers from jet fighters, as they can trucks from a race cars. I’d say the military drone resembles more a stick insect than its accidental namesake the bee. Do Armed UASs have no need for evasive maneuver capability?

I’ll ask another obvious question, why do drones carry no customary insignia designating to whose side it belongs? In particular this element would be of primary importance when encountered by other aircraft.

But a drone doesn’t encounter enemy aircraft, nor allied aircraft who might confuse it for belonging to an adversary, because drones operate where aerial supremacy is already absolute. The key to a drone’s military usefulness is that there is no opponent to shoot it down.

An Armed UAS can drone all it wants, taking its sweet time laying siege to defenseless objectives and other targets of opportunity. The US Predator or Reaper models can glide when they want to surveil in silence, although otherwise their motors project their presence with the deliberate imposition of a school hall monitor. It is more efficient to deter the placing of IEDs than to try to catch insurgents in the act.

Meanwhile all civilians are terrorized by the sound, associating it with sudden, unpredictable and often unjustified destruction and death.

The WWII German Stuka dive bomber had inverted gull wings which were thought to produce a horrifying wail as the notorious aircraft attacked city populations, Guernica among them. In fact the sound was produced by a siren the Nazis called Jericho’s Trumpet, mounted purposefully to spread fear on the ground. Like modern drones, the Stuka were not designed to fend off attackers from the sky.

Before the fighter planes of WWI, artillery spotters would rise in balloons to survey the enemy trenches. From these tethered balloons, artillery strikes could be directed with increasing accuracy. These remote eyes in the sky were the rudiments of aerial surveillance, the precursors to today’s Armed UAS. The balloons were manned obviously, and they weren’t armed, but the spotters they held aloft were despised much as drones are today. When WWI biplanes eventually came along to pick off the balloonists like sitting ducks, the soldiers in the trenches were jubilant.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban had been fortified by the US military. We’d helped the Taliban destabilize the region, to force Russia’s hand in rushing to restore order to its southern neighbor. We wanted to draw the Russian troops in before we assisted the Afghan insurgency with the real weapons it needed to combat their invaders’ superior fire power. When Bin Laden’s Mujihadeen and the Taliban got US Stinger Missiles, the Russians could no longer deploy their helicopter gunships with impunity and the end drew near.

Eventually whoever drew the US into its war on Islam, is going to start distributing the means to take the US out. It might be Stinger Missiles or a modern equivalent. Eventually someone will develop sympathy for the victimized Muslims of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Gaza (add Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc) and help them flick the killer drones from the sky.

Would attacking the drones provide retribution enough, knowing that the real operators are safe in virtual cockpit command centers located safely within US homeland borders. Would it be sufficient to keep clearing the skies of drones, or will our victims have to weed US drones from the roots?

Will the drones prove as easily replaceable as GIs? The American Public keeps count of its lost soldiers, but in no way has this stanched the flow of fresh reinforcements. We do not count expended ordnance, or expensive equipment fallen casualty. Would such tallies discourage the war mongers or encourage weapons industry stockholders?

The American public has shown itself mostly contemptuous of the economic-draft soldiers who man today’s volunteer army, the deaths accumulate, but working poor are expendable. What about those who joined the military to clean up their act? We don’t want those back. After years of war, the public is already seeing too much PTSD, without contemplating bringing all of it home.

Perhaps instead Americans will react to a casualty list of aeronautic losses, maybe for reasons of pure economics. How many helicopters and jets we are losing adds to the federal deficit. But the losses of big equipment might offer the same decision making information we glean from the higher value chess pieces. Rooks and knights represent offensive capability. Hopes for victory or a draw hinge on which of those you have left. No one capitulates based on a count of their pawns. The cumulative tallies will reflect which way the tide is going. Military drones may be worth zero lives, but their destruction will signal an insurgence indomitable.

Company wolves in nonpartisan clothing

Posted on August 21, 2009 by Eric Verlo

Would you believe it? Not My Tribe is “nonpartisan!” We favor neither Republican or Democrat, although current usage presumes you are of course one or the other, it’s just that you’ve agreed not to show bias. Nonpartisan is not “non-aligned.” It does not mean you are neither. Nonpartisan has become more like “nondenominational.” Which means not of a specific religious adherence, but certainly belonging to one of them. And like nondenominational, isn’t it a ruse?

Religious events billing themselves as nondenominational are casting a big net hoping to lure other believers, making the implication that they need to escape their more demarcated sect. They’re after the heathen too, but make no mistake, that doesn’t mean they adjust their platform one iota.

Nonpartisan political groups cast themselves as aligned to neither major party. Laws governing nonprofits forbid party allegiance, but regulations don’t address the socio-political aims of their missions. Just as the term “nonprofit” describes just that entity’s balance sheets. It doesn’t reflect the nonprofit’s goals, from which sponsoring organizations definitely plan to profit.

The insurance company think tanks weighing in against health care reform are all nonpartisan non-profits. You can be a fully-owned research division and because you are neither particularly Republican nor Democrat, you can label yourself not of the fray.

Fox News although shamelessly willing to pervert “fair” and “balanced,” does not have the temerity to call themselves nonpartisan. It would expose the ruse. Propagandist Bill O’Reilly instead hides behind the less inobjective “independent.”

And so Not My Tribe is more accurately independent, because we keep company with neither corporate party, the left or the right.

Obviously are Left, Left, Left, and fully partisan. More akin to namesake Partisans who resisted the Nazi onslaught. Just as the capitalist wolves are corporate partisans in nonpartisan clothing.

The Coming Insurrection

by The Invisible Committee

Translated from the French, 2007

From whatever angle you approach it, the present offers no way out. This is not the least of its virtues. From those who seek hope above all, it tears away every firm ground. Those who claim to have solutions are contradicted almost immediately. Everyone agrees that things can only get worse. “The future has no future” is the wisdom of an age that, for all its appearance of perfect normalcy, has reached the level of consciousness of the first punks.

The sphere of political representation has come to a close. From left to right, it’s the same nothingness striking the pose of an emperor or a savior, the same sales assistants adjusting their discourse according to the findings of the latest surveys. Those who still vote seem to have no other intention than to desecrate the ballot box by voting as a pure act of protest. We’re beginning to suspect that it’s only against voting itself that people continue to vote. Nothing we’re being shown is adequate to the situation, not by far. In its very silence, the populace seems infinitely more mature than all these puppets bickering amongst themselves about how to govern it. The ramblings of any Belleville chibani contain more wisdom than all the declarations of our so-called leaders. The lid on the social kettle is shut triple-tight, and the pressure inside continues to build. From out of Argentina, the specter of Que Se Vayan Todos is beginning to seriously haunt the ruling class.

The flames of November 2005 still flicker in everyone’s minds. Those first joyous fires were the baptism of a decade full of promise. The media fable of “banlieue vs. the Republic” may work, but what it gains in effectiveness it loses in truth. Fires were lit in the city centers, but this news was methodically suppressed. Whole streets in Barcelona burned in solidarity, but no one knew about it apart from the people living there. And it’s not even true that the country has stopped burning. Many different profiles can be found among the arrested, with little that unites them besides a hatred for existing society – not class, race, or even neighborhood. What was new wasn’t the “banlieue revolt,” since that was already going on in the 80s, but the break with its established forms. These assailants no longer listen to anybody, neither to their Big Brothers and Big Sisters, nor to the community organizations charged with overseeing the return to normal. No “SOS Racism” could sink its cancerous roots into this event, whose apparent conclusion can be credited only to fatigue, falsification and the media omertà. This whole series of nocturnal vandalisms and anonymous attacks, this wordless destruction, has widened the breach between politics and the political. No one can honestly deny the obvious: this was an assault that made no demands, a threat without a message, and it had nothing to do with “politics.” One would have to be oblivious to the autonomous youth movements of the last 30 years not to see the purely political character of this resolute negation of politics. Like lost children we trashed the prized trinkets of a society that deserves no more respect than the monuments of Paris at the end of the Bloody Week- and knows it.

There will be no social solution to the present situation. First, because the vague aggregate of social milieus, institutions, and individualized bubbles that is called, with a touch of antiphrasis, “society,” has no consistency. Second, because there’s no longer any language for common experience. And we cannot share wealth if we do not share a language. It took half a century of struggle around the Enlightenment to make the French Revolution possible, and a century of struggle around work to give birth to the fearsome “welfare state.” Struggles create the language in which a new order expresses itself. But there is nothing like that today. Europe is now a continent gone broke that shops secretly at discount stores and has to fly budget airlines if it wants to travel at all. No “problems” framed in social terms admit of a solution. The questions of “pensions,” of “job security,” of “young people” and their “violence” can only be held in suspense while the situation these words serve to cover up is continually policed for signs of further unrest. Nothing can make it an attractive prospect to wipe the asses of pensioners for minimum wage. Those who have found less humiliation and more advantage in a life of crime than in sweeping floors will not turn in their weapons, and prison won’t teach them to love society. Cuts to their monthly pensions will undermine the desperate pleasure-seeking of hordes of retirees, making them stew and splutter about the refusal to work among an ever larger section of youth. And finally, no guaranteed income granted the day after a quasi-uprising will be able to lay the foundation of a new New Deal, a new pact, a new peace. The social feeling has already evaporated too much for that.

As an attempted solution, the pressure to ensure that nothing happens, together with police surveillance of the territory, will only intensify. The unmanned drone that flew over Seine-Saint-Denis last July 14th – as the police later confirmed – presents a much more vivid image of the future than all the fuzzy humanistic projections. That they were careful to assure us that the drone was unarmed gives us a clear indication of the road we’re headed down. The territory will be partitioned into ever more restricted zones. Highways built around the borders of “problem neighborhoods” already form invisible walls closing off those areas off from the middle-class subdivisions. Whatever defenders of the Republic may think, the control of neighborhoods “by the community” is manifestly the most effective means available. The purely metropolitan sections of the country, the main city centers, will go about their opulent lives in an ever more crafty, ever more sophisticated, ever more shimmering deconstruction. They will illuminate the whole planet with their glaring neon lights, as the patrols of the BAC and private security companies (i.e. paramilitary units) proliferate under the umbrella of an increasingly shameless judicial protection.

The impasse of the present, everywhere in evidence, is everywhere denied. There will be no end of psychologists, sociologists, and literary hacks applying themselves to the case, each with a specialized jargon from which the conclusions are especially absent. It’s enough to listen to the songs of the times – the asinine “alt-folk” where the petty bourgeoisie dissects the state of its soul, next to declarations of war from Mafia K’1 Fry – to know that a certain coexistence will end soon, that a decision is near.

This book is signed in the name of an imaginary collective. Its editors are not its authors. They were content merely to introduce a little order into the common-places of our time, collecting some of the murmurings around barroom tables and behind closed bedroom doors. They’ve done nothing more than lay down a few necessary truths, whose universal repression fills psychiatric hospitals with patients, and eyes with pain. They’ve made themselves scribes of the situation. It’s the privileged feature of radical circumstances that a rigorous application of logic leads to revolution. It’s enough just to say what is before our eyes and not to shrink from the conclusions.

First Circle

“I AM WHAT I AM”

“I AM WHAT I AM.” This is marketing’s latest offering to the world, the final stage in the development of advertising, far beyond all the exhortations to be different, to be oneself and drink Pepsi. Decades of concepts in order to get where we are, to arrive at pure tautology. I = I. He’s running on a treadmill in front of the mirror in his gym. She’s coming back from work, behind the wheel of her Smart car. Will they meet?

“I AM WHAT I AM.” My body belongs to me. I am me, you are you, and something’s wrong. Mass personalization. Individualization of all conditions – life, work and misery. Diffuse schizophrenia. Rampant depression. Atomization into fine paranoiac particles. Hysterization of contact. The more I want to be me, the more I feel an emptiness. The more I express myself, the more I am drained. The more I run after myself, the more tired I get. We cling to our self like a coveted job title. We’ve become our own representatives in a strange commerce, guarantors of a personalization that feels, in the end, a lot more like an amputation. We insure our selves to the point of bankruptcy, with a more or less disguised clumsiness.

Meanwhile, I manage. The quest for a self, my blog, my apartment, the latest fashionable crap, relationship dramas, who’s fucking who… whatever prosthesis it takes to hold onto an “I”! If “society” hadn’t become such a definitive abstraction, then it would denote all the existential crutches that allow me to keep dragging on, the ensemble of dependencies I’ve contracted as the price of my identity. The handicapped person is the model citizen of tomorrow. It’s not without foresight that the associations exploiting them today demand that they be granted a “subsistence income.”

The injunction, everywhere, to “be someone” maintains the pathological state that makes this society necessary. The injunction to be strong produces the very weakness by which it maintains itself, so that everything seems to take on a therapeutic character, even working, even love. All those “how’s it goings?” that we exchange give the impression of a society composed of patients taking each other’s temperatures. Sociability is now made up of a thousand little niches, a thousand little refuges where you can take shelter. Where it’s always better than the bitter cold outside. Where everything’s false, since it’s all just a pretext for getting warmed up. Where nothing can happen since we’re all too busy shivering silently together. Soon this society will only be held together by the mere tension of all the social atoms straining towards an illusory cure. It’s a power plant that runs its turbines on a gigantic reservoir of unwept tears, always on the verge of spilling over.

“I AM WHAT I AM.” Never has domination found such an innocent-sounding slogan. The maintenance of the self in a permanent state of deterioration, in a chronic state of near-collapse, is the best-kept secret of the present order of things. The weak, depressed, self-critical, virtual self is essentially that endlessly adaptable subject required by the ceaseless innovation of production, the accelerated obsolescence of technologies, the constant overturning of social norms, and generalized flexibility. It is at the same time the most voracious consumer and, paradoxically, the most productive self, the one that will most eagerly and energetically throw itself into the slightest project, only to return later to its original larval state.

“WHAT AM I,” then? Since childhood, I’ve passed through a flow of milk, smells, stories, sounds, emotions, nursery rhymes, substances, gestures, ideas, impressions, gazes, songs, and foods. What am I? Tied in every way to places, sufferings, ancestors, friends, loves, events, languages, memories, to all kinds of things that obviously are not me. Everything that attaches me to the world, all the links that constitute me, all the forces that compose me don’t form an identity, a thing displayable on cue, but a singular, shared, living existence, from which emerges – at certain times and places – that being which says “I.” Our feeling of inconsistency is simply the consequence of this foolish belief in the permanence of the self and of the little care we give to what makes us what we are.

It’s dizzying to see Reebok’s “I AM WHAT I AM” enthroned atop a Shanghai skyscraper. The West everywhere rolls out its favorite Trojan horse: the exasperating antimony between the self and the world, the individual and the group, between attachment and freedom. Freedom isn’t the act of shedding our attachments, but the practical capacity to work on them, to move around in their space, to form or dissolve them. The family only exists as a family, that is, as a hell, for those who’ve quit trying to alter its debilitating mechanisms, or don’t know how to. The freedom to uproot oneself has always been a phantasmic freedom. We can’t rid ourselves of what binds us without at the same time losing the very thing to which our forces would be applied.

“I AM WHAT I AM,” then, is not simply a lie, a simple advertising campaign, but a military campaign, a war cry directed against everything that exists between beings, against everything that circulates indistinctly, everything that invisibly links them, everything that prevents complete desolation, against everything that makes us exist, and ensures that the whole world doesn’t everywhere have the look and feel of a highway, an amusement park or a new town: pure boredom, passionless but well-ordered, empty, frozen space, where nothing moves apart from registered bodies, molecular automobiles, and ideal commodities.

France wouldn’t be the land of anxiety pills that it’s become, the paradise of anti-depressants, the Mecca of neurosis, if it weren’t also the European champion of hourly productivity. Sickness, fatigue, depression, can be seen as the individual symptoms of what needs to be cured. They contribute to the maintenance of the existing order, to my docile adjustment to idiotic norms, and to the modernization of my crutches. They specify the selection of my opportune, compliant, and productive tendencies, as well as those that must be gently discarded. “It’s never too late to change, you know.” But taken as facts, my failings can also lead to the dismantling of the hypothesis of the self. They then become acts of resistance in the current war. They become a rebellion and a force against everything that conspires to normalize us, to amputate us. The self is not some thing within us that is in a state of crisis; it is the form they mean to stamp upon us. They want to make our self something sharply defined, separate, assessable in terms of qualities, controllable, when in fact we are creatures among creatures, singularities among similars, living flesh weaving the flesh of the world. Contrary to what has been repeated to us since childhood, intelligence doesn’t mean knowing how to adapt – or if that is a kind of intelligence, it’s the intelligence of slaves. Our inadaptability, our fatigue, are only problems from the standpoint of what aims to subjugate us. They indicate rather a departure point, a meeting point, for new complicities. They reveal a landscape more damaged, but infinitely more sharable than all the fantasy lands this society maintains for its purposes.

We are not depressed; we’re on strike. For those who refuse to manage themselves, “depression” is not a state but a passage, a bowing out, a sidestep towards a political disaffiliation. From then on medication and the police are the only possible forms of conciliation. This is why the present society doesn’t hesitate to impose Ritalin on its over-active children, or to strap people into life-long dependence on pharmaceuticals, and why it claims to be able to detect “behavioral disorders” at age three. Because everywhere the hypothesis of the self is beginning to crack.

Second Circle

“Entertainment is a vital need”

A government that declares a state of emergency against fifteen-year-old kids. A country that takes refuge in the arms of a football team. A cop in a hospital bed, complaining about being the victim of “violence.” A city councilwoman issuing a decree against the building of tree houses. Two ten year olds, in Chelles, charged with burning down a video game arcade. This era excels in a certain situation of the grotesque that seems to escape it every time. The truth is that the plaintive, indignant tones of the news media are unable to stifle the burst of laughter that welcomes these headlines.

A burst of laughter is the only appropriate response to all the serious “questions” posed by news analysts. To take the most banal: there is no “immigration question.” Who still grows up where they were born? Who lives where they grew up? Who works where they live? Who lives where their ancestors did? And to whom do the children of this era belong, to television or their parents? The truth is that we have been completely torn from any belonging, we are no longer from anywhere, and the result, in addition to a new disposition to tourism, is an undeniable suffering. Our history is one of colonizations, of migrations, of wars, of exiles, of the destruction of all roots. It’s the story of everything that has made us foreigners in this world, guests in our own family. We have been expropriated from our own language by education, from our songs by reality TV contests, from our flesh by mass pornography, from our city by the police, and from our friends by wage-labor. To this we should add, in France, the ferocious and secular work of individualization by the power of the state, that classifies, compares, disciplines and separates its subjects starting from a very young age, that instinctively grinds down any solidarities that escape it until nothing remains except citizenship – a pure, phantasmic sense of belonging to the Republic. The Frenchman, more than anyone else, is the embodiment of the dispossessed, the destitute. His hatred of foreigners is based on his hatred of himself as a foreigner. The mixture of jealousy and fear he feels toward the “cités“ expresses nothing but his resentment for all he has lost. He can’t help envying these so-called “problem” neighborhoods where there still persists a bit of communal life, a few links between beings, some solidarities not controlled by the state, an informal economy, an organization that is not yet detached from those who organize. We have arrived at a point of privation where the only way to feel French is to curse the immigrants and those who are more visibly foreign. In this country, the immigrants assume a curious position of sovereignty: if they weren’t here, the French might stop existing.

France is a product of its schools, and not the inverse. We live in an excessively scholastic country, where one remembers passing an exam as a sort of life passage. Where retired people still tell you about their failure, forty years earlier, in such and such an exam, and how it screwed up their whole career, their whole life. For a century and a half, the national school system has been producing a type of state subjectivity that stands out amongst all others. People who accept competition on the condition that the playing field is level. Who expect in life that each person be rewarded as in a contest, according to their merit. Who always ask permission before taking. Who silently respect culture, the rules, and those with the best grades. Even their attachment to their great, critical intellectuals and their rejection of capitalism are branded by this love of school. It’s this construction of subjectivities by the state that is breaking down, every day a little more, with the decline of the scholarly institutions. The reappearance, over the past twenty years, of a school and a culture of the street, in competition with the school of the republic and its cardboard culture, is the most profound trauma that French universalism is presently undergoing. On this point, the extreme right is already reconciled with the most virulent left. However, the name Jules Ferry – Minister of Thiers during the crushing of the Commune and theoretician of colonization – should itself be enough to render this institution suspect.

When we see teachers from some “citizens’ vigilance committee” come on the evening news to whine about someone burning down their school, we remember how many times, as children, we dreamed of doing exactly this. When we hear a leftist intellectual blabbering about the barbarism of groups of kids harassing passersby in the street, shoplifting, burning cars, and playing cat and mouse with riot police, we remember what they said about the greasers in the 50s or, better, the apaches in the “Belle Époque”: “The generic name apaches,” writes a judge at the Seine tribunal in 1907, “has for the past few years been a way of designating all dangerous individuals, enemies of society, without nation or family, deserters of all duties, ready for the most audacious confrontations, and for any sort of attack on persons and properties.” These gangs who flee work, who adopt the names of their neighborhoods, and confront the police are the nightmare of the good, individualized French citizen: they embody everything he has renounced, all the possible joy he will never experience. There is something impertinent about existing in a country where a child singing as she pleases is inevitably silenced with a “stop, you’re going to stir things up,” where scholastic castration unleashes floods of policed employees. The aura that persists around Mesrine has less to do with his uprightness and his audacity than with the fact that he took it upon himself to enact vengeance on what we should all avenge. Or rather, of what we should avenge directly, when instead we continue to hesitate and defer endlessly. Because there is no doubt that in a thousand imperceptible and undercover ways, in all sorts of slanderous remarks, in every spiteful little expression and venomous politeness, the Frenchman continues to avenge, permanently and against everyone, the fact that he’s resigned himself to being trampled over. It was about time that fuck the police! replaced yes sir, officer! In this sense, the un-nuanced hostility of certain gangs only expresses, in a slightly less muffled way, the poisonous atmosphere, the rotten spirit, the desire for a salvational destruction in which the country is completely consumed.

To call this population of strangers in the midst of which we live “society” is such an usurpation that even sociologists dream of renouncing a concept that was, for a century, their bread and butter. Now they prefer the metaphor of a network to describe the connection of cybernetic solitudes, the intermeshing of weak interactions under names like “colleague,” “contact,” “buddy,” “acquaintance,” or “date.” Such networks sometimes condense into a milieu, where nothing is shared but codes, and where nothing is played out except the incessant recomposition of identity.

It would be a waste of time to detail all that which is agonizing in existing social relations. They say the family is coming back, that the couple is coming back. But the family that’s coming back is not the same one that went away. Its return is nothing but a deepening of the reigning separation that it serves to mask, becoming what it is through this masquerade. Everyone can testify to the rations of sadness condensed from year to year in family gatherings, the forced smiles, the awkwardness of seeing everyone pretending in vain, the feeling that a corpse is lying there on the table, and everyone acting as though it were nothing. From flirtation to divorce, from cohabitation to stepfamilies, everyone feels the inanity of the sad family nucleus, but most seem to believe that it would be sadder still to renounce it. The family is no longer so much the suffocation of maternal control or the patriarchy of beatings as it is this infantile abandon to a fuzzy dependency, where everything is familiar, this carefree moment in the face of a world that nobody can deny is breaking down, a world where “becoming self-sufficient” is a euphemism for “having found a boss.” They want to use the “familiarity” of the biological family as an excuse to eat away at anything that burns passionately within us and, under the pretext that they raised us, make us renounce the possibility of growing up, as well as everything that is serious in childhood. It is necessary to preserve oneself from such corrosion.

The couple is like the final stage of the great social debacle. It’s the oasis in the middle of the human desert. Under the auspices of “intimacy,” we come to it looking for everything that has so obviously deserted contemporary social relations: warmth, simplicity, truth, a life without theater or spectator. But once the romantic high has passed, “intimacy” strips itself bare: it is itself a social invention, it speaks the language of glamour magazines and psychology; like everything else, it is bolstered with so many strategies to the point of nausea. There is no more truth here than elsewhere; here too lies and the laws of estrangement dominate. And when, by good fortune, one discovers this truth, it demands a sharing that belies the very form of the couple. What allows beings to love each other is also what makes them lovable, and ruins the utopia of autism-for-two.

In reality, the decomposition of all social forms is a blessing. It is for us the ideal condition for a wild, massive experimentation with new arrangements, new fidelities. The famous “parental resignation” has imposed on us a confrontation with the world that demands a precocious lucidity, and foreshadows lovely revolts to come. In the death of the couple, we see the birth of troubling forms of collective affectivity, now that sex is all used up and masculinity and femininity parade around in such moth-eaten clothes, now that three decades of non-stop pornographic innovation have exhausted all the allure of transgression and liberation. We count on making that which is unconditional in relationships the armor of a political solidarity as impenetrable to state interference as a gypsy camp. There is no reason that the interminable subsidies that numerous relatives are compelled to offload onto their proletarianized progeny can’t become a form of patronage in favor of social subversion. “Becoming autonomous,” could just as easily mean learning to fight in the street, to occupy empty houses, to cease working, to love each other madly, and to shoplift.

Third Circle

“Life, health and love are precarious – why should work be an exception?”

No question is more confused, in France, than the question of work. No relation is more disfigured than the one between the French and work. Go to Andalusia, to Algeria, to Naples. They despise work, profoundly. Go to Germany, to the United States, to Japan. They revere work. Things are changing, it’s true. There are plenty of otaku in Japan, frohe Arbeitslose in Germany and workaholics in Andalusia. But for the time being these are only curiosities. In France, we get down on all fours to climb the ladders of hierarchy, but privately flatter ourselves that we don’t really give a shit. We stay at work until ten o’clock in the evening when we’re swamped, but we’ve never had any scruples about stealing office supplies here and there, or carting off the inventory in order to resell it later. We hate bosses, but we want to be employed at any cost. To have a job is an honor, yet working is a sign of servility. In short: the perfect clinical illustration of hysteria. We love while hating, we hate while loving. And we all know the stupor and confusion that strike the hysteric when he loses his victim – his master. Most of the time he never recovers.

This neurosis is the foundation upon which successive governments could declare war on joblessness, pretending to wage a “battle on unemployment” while ex-managers camped with their cell phones in Red Cross shelters along the banks of the Seine. While the Department of Labor was massively manipulating its statistics in order to bring unemployment numbers below two million. While welfare checks and drug dealing were the only guarantees, as the French state has recognized, against the possibility of social unrest at each and every moment. It’s the psychic economy of the French as much as the political stability of the country that is at stake in the maintenance of the workerist fiction.

Excuse us if we don’t give a fuck.

We belong to a generation that lives very well in this fiction. That has never counted on either a pension or the right to work, let alone rights at work. That isn’t even “precarious,” as the most advanced factions of the militant left like to theorize, because to be precarious is still to define oneself in relation to the sphere of work, that is, to its decomposition. We accept the necessity of finding money, by whatever means, because it is currently impossible to do without it, but we reject the necessity of working. Besides, we don’t work anymore: we do our time. Business is not a place where we exist, it’s a place we pass through. We aren’t cynical, we are just reluctant to be deceived. All these discourses on motivation, quality and personal investment pass us by, to the great dismay of human resources managers. They say we are disappointed by business, that it failed to honor our parents’ loyalty, that it let them go too quickly. They are lying. To be disappointed, one must have hoped for something. And we have never hoped for anything from business: we see it for what it is and for what it has always been, a fool’s game of varying degrees of comfort. On behalf of our parents, our only regret is that they fell into the trap, at least the ones who believed.

The sentimental confusion that surrounds the question of work can be explained thus: the notion of work has always included two contradictory dimensions: a dimension of exploitation and a dimension of participation. Exploitation of individual and collective labor power through the private or social appropriation of surplus value; participation in a common effort through the relations linking those who cooperate at the heart of the universe of production. These two dimensions are perversely confused in the notion of work, which explains workers’ indifference, at the end of the day, to both Marxist rhetoric – which denies the dimension of participation – and managerial rhetoric – which denies the dimension of exploitation. Hence the ambivalence of the relation of work, which is shameful insofar as it makes us strangers to what we are doing, and – at the same time – adored, insofar as a part of ourselves is brought into play. The disaster has already occurred: it resides in everything that had to be destroyed, in all those who had to be uprooted, in order for work to end up as the only way of existing. The horror of work is less in the work itself than in the methodical ravaging, for centuries, of all that isn’t work: the familiarities of one’s neighborhood and trade, of one’s village, of struggle, of kinship, our attachment to places, to beings, to the seasons, to ways of doing and speaking.

Here lies the present paradox: work has totally triumphed over all other ways of existing, at the very moment when workers have become superfluous. Gains in productivity, outsourcing, mechanization, automated and digital production have so progressed that they have almost reduced to zero the quantity of living labor necessary in the manufacture of any product. We are living the paradox of a society of workers without work, where entertainment, consumption and leisure only underscore the lack from which they are supposed to distract us. The mine in Carmaux, famous for a century of violent strikes, has now been reconverted into Cape Discovery. It’s an entertainment “multiplex” for skateboarding and biking, distinguished by a “Mining Museum” in which methane blasts are simulated for vacationers.

In corporations, work is divided in an increasingly visible way into highly skilled positions of research, conception, control, coordination and communication which deploy all the knowledge necessary for the new, cybernetic production process, and unskilled positions for the maintenance and surveillance of this process. The first are few in number, very well paid and thus so coveted that the minority who occupy these positions will do anything to avoid losing them. They and their work are effectively bound in one anguished embrace. Managers, scientists, lobbyists, researchers, programmers, developers, consultants and engineers, literally never stop working. Even their sex lives serve to augment productivity. A Human Resources philosopher writes,

“[t]he most creative businesses are the ones with the greatest number of intimate relations.” “Business associates,” a Daimler-Benz Human Resources Manager confirms, “are an important part of the business’s capital […] Their motivation, their know-how, their capacity to innovate and their attention to clients’ desires constitute the raw material of innovative services […] Their behavior, their social and emotional competence, are a growing factor in the evaluation of their work […] This will no longer be evaluated in terms of number of hours on the job, but on the basis of objectives attained and quality of results. They are entrepreneurs.”

The series of tasks that can’t be delegated to automation form a nebulous cluster of jobs that, because they cannot be occupied by machines, are occupied by any old human – warehousemen, stock people, assembly line workers, seasonal workers, etc. This flexible, undifferentiated workforce that moves from one task to the next and never stays long in a business can no longer even consolidate itself as a force, being outside the center of the production process and employed to plug the holes of what has not yet been mechanized, as if pulverized in a multitude of interstices. The temp is the figure of the worker who is no longer a worker, who no longer has a trade – but only abilities that he sells where he can – and whose very availability is also a kind of work.

On the margins of this workforce that is effective and necessary for the functioning of the machine, is a growing majority that has become superfluous, that is certainly useful to the flow of production but not much else, which introduces the risk that, in its idleness, it will set about sabotaging the machine. The menace of a general demobilization is the specter that haunts the present system of production. Not everybody responds to the question “why work?” in the same way as this ex-welfare recipient: “for my well-being. I have to keep myself busy.” There is a serious risk that we will end up finding a job in our very idleness. This floating population must somehow be kept occupied. But to this day they have not found a better disciplinary method than wages. It’s therefore necessary to pursue the dismantling of “social gains” so that the most restless ones, those who will only surrender when faced with the alternative between dying of hunger or stagnating in jail, are lured back to the bosom of wage-labor. The burgeoning slave trade in “personal services” must continue: cleaning, catering, massage, domestic nursing, prostitution, tutoring, therapy, psychological aid, etc. This is accompanied by a continual raising of the standards of security, hygiene, control, and culture, and by an accelerated recycling of fashions, all of which establish the need for such services. In Rouen, we now have “human parking meters:” someone who waits around on the street and delivers you your parking slip, and, if it’s raining, will even rent you an umbrella.

The order of work was the order of a world. The evidence of its ruin is paralyzing to those who dread what will come after. Today work is tied less to the economic necessity of producing goods than to the political necessity of producing producers and consumers, and of preserving by any means necessary the order of work. Producing oneself is becoming the dominant occupation of a society where production no longer has an object: like a carpenter who’s been evicted from his shop and in desperation sets about hammering and sawing himself. All these young people smiling for their job interviews, who have their teeth whitened to give them an edge, who go to nightclubs to boost the company spirit, who learn English to advance their careers, who get divorced or married to move up the ladder, who take courses in leadership or practice “self-improvement” in order to better “manage conflicts” – “the most intimate ’self-improvement’”, says one guru, “will lead to increased emotional stability, to smoother and more open relationships, to sharper intellectual focus, and therefore to a better economic performance.” This swarming little crowd that waits impatiently to be hired while doing whatever it can to seem natural is the result of an attempt to rescue the order of work through an ethos of mobility. To be mobilized is to relate to work not as an activity but as a possibility. If the unemployed person removes his piercings, goes to the barber and keeps himself busy with “projects,” if he really works on his “employability,” as they say, it’s because this is how he demonstrates his mobility. Mobility is this slight detachment from the self, this minimal disconnection from what constitutes us, this condition of strangeness whereby the self can now be taken up as an object of work, and it now becomes possible to sell oneself rather than one’s labor power, to be remunerated not for what one does but for what one is, for our exquisite mastery of social codes, for our relational talents, for our smile and our way of presenting ourselves. This is the new standard of socialization. Mobility brings about a fusion of the two contradictory poles of work: here we participate in our own exploitation, and all participation is exploited. Ideally, you are yourself a little business, your own boss, your own product. Whether one is working or not, it’s a question of generating contacts, abilities, networking, in short: “human capital.” The planetary injunction to mobilize at the slightest pretext – cancer, “terrorism,” an earthquake, the homeless – sums up the reigning powers’ determination to maintain the reign of work beyond its physical disappearance.

The present production apparatus is therefore, on the one hand, a gigantic machine for psychic and physical mobilization, for sucking the energy of humans that have become superfluous, and, on the other hand, it is a sorting machine that allocates survival to conformed subjectivities and rejects all “problem individuals,” all those who embody another use of life and, in this way, resist it. On the one hand, ghosts are brought to life, and on the other, the living are left to die. This is the properly political function of the contemporary production apparatus.

To organize beyond and against work, to collectively desert the regime of mobility, to demonstrate the existence of a vitality and a discipline precisely in demobilization, is a crime for which a civilization on its knees is not about to forgive us. In fact, it’s the only way to survive it.

Fourth Circle

“More simple, more fun, more mobile, more secure!”

We’ve heard enough about the “city” and the “country,” and particularly about the supposed ancient opposition between the two. From up close or from afar, what surrounds us looks nothing like that: it is one single urban cloth, without form or order, a bleak zone, endless and undefined, a global continuum of museum-like city centers and natural parks, of enormous suburban housing developments and massive agricultural projects, industrial zones and subdivisions, country inns and trendy bars: the metropolis. Certainly the ancient city existed, as did the cities of medieval and modern times. But there is no such thing as a metropolitan city. All territory is synthesized within the metropolis. Everything occupies the same space, if not geographically then through the intermeshing of its networks.

It’s because the city has finally disappeared that it has now become fetishized, as history. The factory buildings of Lille become concert halls. The rebuilt concrete core of Le Havre is now a UNESCO World Heritage sire. In Beijing, the hutongs surrounding the Forbidden City were demolished, replaced by fake versions, placed a little farther out, on display for sightseers. In Troyes they paste half-timber facades onto cinderblock buildings, a type of pastiche that resembles the Victorian shops at Disneyland Paris more than anything else. The old historic centers, once hotbeds of revolutionary sedition, are now wisely integrated into the organizational diagram of the metropolis. They’ve been given over to tourism and conspicuous consumption. They are the fairy-tale commodity islands, propped up by their expos and decorations, and by force if necessary. The oppressive sentimentality of every “Christmas Village” is offset by ever more security guards and city patrols. Control has a wonderful way of integrating itself into the commodity landscape, showing its authoritarian face to anyone who wants to see it. It’s an age of fusions, of muzak, telescoping police batons and cotton candy. Equal parts police surveillance and enchantement!

This taste for the “authentic,” and for the control that goes with it, is carried by the petty bourgeoisie through their colonizing drives into working class neighborhoods. Pushed out of the city centers, they find on the frontiers the kind of “neighborhood feeling” they missed in the prefab houses of suburbia. In chasing out the poor people, the cars, and the immigrants, in making it tidy, in getting rid of all the germs, the petty bourgeoisie pulverizes the very thing it came looking for. A police officer and a garbage man shake hands in a picture on a town billboard, and the slogan reads: “Montauban – Clean City.”

The same sense of decency that obliges urbanists to stop speaking of the “city” (which they destroyed) and instead to talk of the “urban,” should compel them also to drop “country” (since it no longer exists). The uprooted and stressed-out masses are instead shown a countryside, a vision of the past that’s easy to stage now that the country folk have been so depleted. It is a marketing campaign deployed on a “territory” in which everything must be valorized or reconstituted as national heritage. Everywhere it’s the same chilling void, reaching into even the most remote and rustic corners.

The metropolis is this simultaneous death of city and country. It is the crossroads where all the petty bourgeois come together, in the middle of this middle class that stretches out indefinitely, as much a result of rural flight as of urban sprawl. To cover the planet with glass would fit perfectly the cynicism of contemporary architecture. A school, a hospital, or a media center are all variations on the same theme: transparency, neutrality, uniformity. These massive, fluid buildings are conceived without any need to know what they will house. They could be here as much as anywhere else. What to do with all the office towers at La Défense in Paris, the apartment blocks of Lyon’s La Part Dieu, or the shopping complexes of EuraLille? The expression “flambant neuf” perfectly captures their destiny. A Scottish traveler testifies to the unique attraction of the power of fire, speaking after rebels had burned the Hôtel de Ville in Paris in May, 1871:

“Never could I have imagined anything so beautiful. It’s superb. I won’t deny that the people of the Commune are frightful rogues. But what artists! And they were not even aware of their own masterpiece! […] I have seen the ruins of Amalfi bathed in the azure swells of the Mediterranean, and the ruins of the Tung-hoor temples in Punjab. I’ve seen Rome and many other things. But nothing can compare to what I have seen here tonight before my very eyes.”

There still remain some fragments of the city and some traces of the country caught up in the metropolitan mesh. But vitality has taken up quarters in the so-called “problem” neighborhoods. It’s a paradox that the places thought to be the most uninhabitable turn out to be the only ones still in some way inhabited. An old squatted shack still feels more lived in than the so-called luxury apartments where it is only possible to set down the furniture and get the décor just right while waiting for the next move. Within many of today’s megalopolises, the shantytowns are the last living and livable areas, and also, of course, the most deadly. They are the flip-side of the electronic décor of the global metropolis. The dormitory towers in the suburbs north of Paris, abandoned by a petty bourgeoisie that went off hunting for swimming pools, have been brought back to life by mass unemployment and now radiate more energy than the Latin Quarter. In words as much as fire.

The conflagration of November 2005 was not a result of extreme dispossession, as it is often portrayed. It was, on the contrary, a complete possession of a territory. People can burn cars because they are pissed off, but to keep the riots going for a month, while keeping the police in check – to do that you have to know how to organize, you have to establish complicities, you have to know the terrain perfectly, and share a common language and a common enemy. Mile after mile and week after week, the fire spread. New blazes responded to the original ones, appearing where they were least expected. Rumors can’t be wiretapped.

The metropolis is a terrain of constant low-intensity conflict, in which the taking of Basra, Mogadishu, or Nablus mark points of culmination. For a long time, the city was a place for the military to avoid, or if anything, to besiege; but the metropolis is perfectly compatible with war. Armed conflict is only a moment in its constant reconfiguration. The battles led by the great powers resemble a kind of never-ending police work in the black holes of the metropolis, “whether in Burkina Faso, in the South Bronx, in Kamagasaki, in Chiapas, or in La Courneuve.” No longer undertaken in view of victory or peace, or even the re-establishment of order, such “interventions” continue a security operation that is always already at work. War is no longer a distinct event in time, but instead diffracts into a series of micro-operations, by both military and police, to ensure security.

The police and the army are evolving in parallel and in lock-step. A criminologist requests that the national riot police reorganize itself into small, professionalized, mobile units. The military academy, cradle of disciplinary methods, is rethinking its own hierarchical organization. For his infantry battalion a NATO officer employs a

“participatory method that involves everyone in the analysis, preparation, execution, and evaluation of an action. The plan is considered and reconsidered for days, right through the training phase and according to the latest intelligence […] There is nothing like group planning for building team cohesion and morale.”

The armed forces don’t simply adapt themselves to the metropolis, they produce it. Thus, since the battle of Nablus, Israeli soldiers have become interior designers. Forced by Palestinian guerrillas to abandon the streets, which had become too dangerous, they learned to advance vertically and horizontally into the heart of the urban architecture, poking holes in walls and ceilings in order to move through them. An officer in the Israel Defense Forces, and a graduate in philosophy, explains: “the enemy interprets space in a traditional, classical manner, and I do not want to obey this interpretation and fall into his traps. […] I want to surprise him! This is the essence of war. I need to win […] This is why that we opted for the methodology of moving through walls […] Like a worm that eats its way forward.” Urban space is more than just the theater of confrontation, it is also the means. This echoes the advice of Blanqui who recommended (in this case for the party of insurrection) that the future insurgents of Paris take over the houses on the barricaded streets to protect their positions, that they should bore holes in the walls to allow passage between houses, break down the ground floor stairwells and poke holes in the ceilings to defend themselves against potential attackers, rip out the doors and use them to barricade the windows, and turn each floor into a gun turret.

The metropolis is not just this urban pile-up, this final collision between city and country. It is also a flow of beings and things, a current that runs through fiber-optic networks, through high-speed train lines, satellites, and video surveillance cameras, making sure that this world never stops running straight to its ruin. It is a current that would like to drag everything along in its hopeless mobility, to mobilize each and every one of us. Where information pummels us like some kind of hostile force. Where the only thing left to do is run. Where it becomes hard to wait, even for the umpteenth subway train.

With the proliferation of means of movement and communication, and with the lure of always being elsewhere, we are continuously torn from the here and now. Hop on an intercity or commuter train, pick up a telephone – in order to be already gone. Such mobility only ever means uprootedness, isolation, exile. It would be insufferable if it weren’t always the mobility of a private space, of a portable interior. The private bubble doesn’t burst, it floats around. The process of cocooning is not going away, it is merely being put into motion. From a train station, to an office park, to a commercial bank, from one hotel to another, there is everywhere a foreignness, a feeling so banal and so habitual it becomes the last form of familiarity. Metropolitan excess is this capricious mixing of definite moods, indefinitely recombined. The city centers of the metropolis are not clones of themselves, but offer instead their own auras; we glide from one to the next, selecting this one and rejecting that one, to the tune of a kind of existential shopping trip among different styles of bars, people, designs, or playlists. “With my mp3 player, I’m the master of my world.” To cope with the uniformity that surrounds us, our only option is to constantly renovate our own interior world, like a child who constructs the same little house over and over again, or like Robinson Crusoe reproducing his shopkeeper’s universe on a desert island – yet our desert island is civilization itself, and there are billions of us continually washing up on it.

It is precisely due to this architecture of flows that the metropolis is one of the most vulnerable human arrangements that has ever existed. Supple, subtle, but vulnerable. A brutal shutting down of borders to fend off a raging epidemic, a sudden interruption of supply lines, organized blockades of the axes of communication – and the whole facade crumbles, a facade that can no longer mask the scenes of carnage haunting it from morning to night. The world would not be moving so fast if it didn’t have to constantly outrun its own collapse.

The metropolis aims to shelter itself from inevitable malfunction via its network structure, via its entire technological infrastructure of nodes and connections, its decentralized architecture. The internet is supposed to survive a nuclear attack. Permanent control of the flow of information, people and products makes the mobility of the metropolis secure, while its’ tracking systems ensure that no shipping containers get lost, that not a single dollar is stolen in any transaction, and that no terrorist ends up on an airplane. All thanks to an RFID chip, a biometric passport, a DNA profile.

But the metropolis also produces the means of its own destruction. An American security expert explains the defeat in Iraq as a result of the guerrillas’ ability to take advantage of new ways of communicating. The US invasion didn’t so much import democracy to Iraq as it did cybernetic networks. They brought with them one of the weapons of their own defeat. The proliferation of mobile phones and internet access points gave the guerrillas newfound ways to self-organize, and allowed them to become such elusive targets.

Every network has its weak points, the nodes that must be undone in order to interrupt circulation, to unwind the web. The last great European electrical blackout proved it: a single incident with a high-tension wire and a decent part of the continent was plunged into darkness. In order for something to rise up in the midst of the metropolis and open up other possibilities, the first act must be to interrupt its perpetuum mobile. That is what the Thai rebels understood when they knocked out electrical stations. That is what the French anti-CPE protestors understood in 2006 when they shut down the universities with a view toward shutting down the entire economy. That is what the American longshoremen understood when they struck in October, 2002 in support of three hundred jobs, blocking the main ports on the West Coast for ten days. The American economy is so dependent on goods coming from Asia that the cost of the blockade was over a billion dollars per day. With ten thousand people, the largest economic power in the world can be brought to its knees. According to certain “experts,” if the action had lasted another month, it would have produced “a recession in the United States and an economic nightmare in Southeast Asia.”

Fifth Circle

“Less possessions, more connections!”

Thirty years of “crisis,” mass unemployment and flagging growth, and they still want us to believe in the economy. Thirty years punctuated, it is true, by delusionary interludes: the interlude of 1981-83, when we were deluded into thinking a government of the left might make people better off; the “easy money” interlude of 1986-89, when we were all supposed to be playing the market and getting rich; the internet interlude of 1998-2001, when everyone was going to get a virtual career through being well-connected, when a diverse but united France, cultured and multicultural, would bring home every World Cup. But here we are, we’ve drained our supply of delusions, we’ve hit rock bottom and are totally broke, or buried in debt.

We have to see that the economy is not “in” crisis, the economy is itself the crisis. It’s not that there’s not enough work, it’s that there is too much of it. All things considered, it’s not the crisis that depresses us, it’s growth. We must admit that the litany of stock market prices moves us about as much as a Latin mass. Luckily for us, there are quite a few of us who have come to this conclusion. We’re not talking about those who live off various scams, who deal in this or that, or who have been on welfare for the last ten years. Or of all those who no longer find their identity in their jobs and live for their time off. Nor are we talking about those who’ve been swept under the rug, the hidden ones who make do with the least, and yet outnumber the rest. All those struck by this strange mass detachment, adding to the ranks of retirees and the cynically overexploited flexible labor force. We’re not talking about them, although they too should, in one way or another, arrive at a similar conclusion.

We are talking about all of the countries, indeed entire continents, that have lost faith in the economy, either because they’ve seen the IMF come and go amid crashes and enormous losses, or because they’ve gotten a taste of the World Bank. The soft crisis of vocation that the West is now experiencing is completely absent in these places. What is happening in Guinea, Russia, Argentina and Bolivia is a violent and long-lasting debunking of this religion and its clergy. “What do you call a thousand IMF economists lying at the bottom of the sea?” went the joke at the World Bank, – “a good start.” A Russian joke: “Two economists meet. One asks the other: ‘You understand what’s happening?’ The other responds: ‘Wait, I’ll explain it to you.’ ‘No, no,’ says the first, ‘explaining is no problem, I’m an economist, too. What I’m asking is: do you understand?” Entire sections of this clergy pretend to be dissidents and to critique this religion’s dogma. The latest attempt to revive the so-called “science of the economy” – a current that straight-facedly refers to itself as “post autistic economics” – makes a living from dismantling the usurpations, sleights of hand and cooked books of a science whose only tangible function is to rattle the monstrance during the vociferations of the chiefs, giving their demands for submission a bit of ceremony, and ultimately doing what religions have always done: providing explanations. For total misery becomes intolerable the moment it is shown for what it is, without cause or reason.

Nobody respects money anymore, neither those who have it nor those who don’t. When asked what they want to be some day, twenty percent of young Germans answer “artist.” Work is no longer endured as a given of the human condition. The accounting departments of corporations confess that they have no idea where value comes from. The market’s bad reputation would have done it in a decade ago if not for the bluster and fury, not to mention the deep pockets, of its apologists. It is common sense now to see progress as synonymous with disaster. In the world of the economic, everything is in flight, just like in the USSR under Andropov. Anyone who has spent a little time analyzing the final years of the USSR knows very well that the pleas for goodwill coming from our rulers, all of their fantasies about some future that has disappeared without a trace, all of their professions of faith in “reforming” this and that, are just the first fissures in the structure of the wall. The collapse of the socialist bloc was in no way victory of capitalism; it was merely the bankrupting of one of the forms capitalism takes. Besides, the demise of the USSR did not come about because a people revolted, but because the nomenclature was undergoing a process of reconversion. When it proclaimed the end of socialism, a small fraction of the ruling class emancipated itself from the anachronistic duties that still bound it to the people. It took private control of what it already controlled in the name of “everyone.” In the factories, the joke went: “we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.” The oligarchy replied, “there’s no point, let’s stop pretending!” They ended up with the raw materials, industrial infrastructures, the military-industrial complex, the banks and the nightclubs. Everyone else got poverty or emigration. Just as no one in Andropov’s time believed in the USSR, no one in the meeting halls, workshops and offices believes in France today. “There’s no point,” respond the bosses and political leaders, who no longer even bother to file the edges off the “iron laws of the economy.” They strip factories in the middle of the night and announce the shutdown early next morning. They no longer hesitate to send in anti-terrorism units to shut down a strike, like with the ferries and the occupied recycling center in Rennes. The brutal activity of power today consists both in administering this ruin while, at the same time, establishing the framework for a “new economy.”

And yet there is no doubt that we are cut out for the economy. For generations we were disciplined, pacified and made into subjects, productive by nature and content to consume. And suddenly everything that we were compelled to forget is revealed: that the economy is political. And that this politics is, today, a politics of discrimination within a humanity that has, as a whole, become superfluous. From Colbert to de Gaulle, by way of Napoleon III, the state has always treated the economic as political, as have the bourgeoisie (who profit from it) and the proletariat (who confront it). All that’s left is this strange, middling part of the population, the curious and powerless aggregate of those who take no sides: the petty bourgeoisie. They have always pretended to believe that the economy is a reality-because their neutrality is safe there. Small business owners, small bosses, minor bureaucrats, managers, professors, journalists, middlemen of every sort make up this non-class in France, this social gelatin composed of the mass of all those who just want to live their little private lives at a distance from history and its tumults. This swamp is predisposed to be the champion of false consciousness, half-asleep and always ready to close its eyes on the war that rages all around it. Each clarification of a front in this war is thus accompanied in France by the invention of some new fad. For the past ten years, it was ATTAC and its improbable Tobin tax -a tax whose implementation would require nothing less than a global government-with its sympathy for the “real economy” as opposed to the financial markets, not to mention its touching nostalgia for the state. The comedy lasts only so long before turning into a sham. And then another fad replaces it. So now we have “degrowth“. Whereas ATTAC tried to save economics as a science with its popular education courses, degrowth preserves the economic as a morality. There is only one alternative to the coming apocalypse: reduce growth. Consume and produce less. Become joyously frugal. Eat organic, ride your bike, stop smoking, and pay close attention to the products you buy. Be content with what’s strictly necessary. Voluntary simplicity. “Rediscover true wealth in the blossoming of convivial social relations in a healthy world.” “Don’t use up our natural capital.” Work toward a “healthy economy.” “No regulation through chaos.” “Avoid a social crisis that would threaten democracy and humanism.” Simply put: become economical. Go back to daddy’s economy, to the golden age of the petty bourgeoisie: the 1950s. “When an individual is frugal, property serves its function perfectly, which is to allow the individual to enjoy his or her own life sheltered from public existence, in the private sanctuary of his or her life.”

A graphic designer wearing a handmade sweater is drinking a fruity cocktail with some friends on the terrace of an “ethnic” café. They’re chatty and cordial, they joke around a bit, they make sure not to be too loud or too quiet, they smile at each other, a little blissfully: we are so civilized. Afterwards, some of them will go work in the neighborhood community garden, while others will dabble in pottery, some Zen Buddhism, or in the making of an animated film. They find communion in the smug feeling that they constitute a new humanity, wiser and more refined than the previous one. And they are right. There is a curious agreement between Apple and the degrowth movement about the civilization of the future. Some people’s idea of returning to the economy of yesteryear offers others the convenient screen behind which a great technological leap forward can be launched. For in history there is no going back. Any exhortation to return to the past is only the expression of one form of consciousness of the present, and rarely the least modern. It is not by chance that degrowth is the banner of the dissident advertisers of the magazine Casseurs de Pub. The inventors of zero growth-the Club of Rome in 1972-were themselves a group of industrialists and bureaucrats who relied on a research paper written by cyberneticians at MIT.

This convergence is hardly a coincidence. It is part of the forced march towards a modernized economy. Capitalism got as much as it could from undoing all the old social ties, and it is now in the process of remaking itself by rebuilding these same ties on its own terms. Contemporary metropolitan social life is its incubator. In the same way, it ravaged the natural world and is driven by the fantasy that it can now be reconstituted as so many controlled environments, furnished with all the necessary sensors. This new humanity requires a new economy that would no longer be a separate sphere of existence but, on the contrary, its very tissue, the raw material of human relations; it requires a new definition of work as work on oneself, a new definition of capital as human capital, a new idea of production as the production of relations, and consumption as the consumption of situations; and above all a new idea of value that would encompass all of the qualities of beings. This burgeoning “bioeconomy” conceives the planet as a closed system to be managed and claims to establish the foundations for a science that would integrate all the parameters of life. Such a science threatens to make us miss the good old days when unreliable indices like GDP growth were supposed to measure the well-being of a people-for at least no one believed in them.

“Revalorize the non-economic aspects of life” is the slogan shared by the degrowth movement and by capital’s reform program. Eco-villages, video-surveillance cameras, spirituality, biotechnologies and sociability all belong to the same “civilizational paradigm” now taking shape, that of a total economy rebuilt from the ground up. Its intellectual matrix is none other than cybernetics, the science of systems-that is, the science of their control. In the 17th century it was necessary, in order to completely impose the force of economy and its ethos of work and greed, to confine and eliminate the whole seamy mass of layabouts, liars, witches, madmen, scoundrels and all the other vagrant poor, a whole humanity whose very existence gave the lie to the order of interest and continence. The new economy cannot be established without a similar screening of subjects and zones singled out for transformation. The chaos that we constantly hear about will either provide the opportunity for this screening, or for our victory over this odious project.

Sixth Circle

“The environment is an industrial challenge.”

Ecology is the discovery of the decade. For the last thirty years we’ve left it up to the environmentalists, joking about it on Sunday so that we can act concerned again on Monday. And now it’s caught up to us, invading the airwaves like a hit song in summertime, because it’s 68 degrees in December.

One quarter of the fish species have disappeared from the ocean. The rest won’t last much longer.

Bird flu alert: we are given assurances that hundreds of thousands of migrating birds will be shot from the sky.

Mercury levels in human breast milk are ten times higher than the legal level for cows. And these lips which swell up after I bite the apple – but it came from the farmer’s market. The simplest gestures have become toxic. One dies at the age of 35 from “a prolonged illness” that’s to be managed just like one manages everything else. We should’ve seen it coming before we got to this place, to pavilion B of the palliative care center.

You have to admit: this whole “catastrophe,” which they so noisily inform us about, it doesn’t really touch us. At least not until we are hit by one of its foreseeable consequences. It may concern us, but it doesn’t touch us. And that is the real catastrophe.

There is no “environmental catastrophe.” The catastrophe is the environment itself. The environment is what’s left to man after he’s lost everything. Those who live in a neighborhood, a street, a valley, a war zone, a workshop – they don’t have an “environment;” they move through a world peopled by presences, dangers, friends, enemies, moments of life and death, all kinds of beings. Such a world has its own consistency, which varies according to the intensity and quality of the ties attaching us to all of these beings, to all of these places. It’s only us, the children of the final dispossession, exiles of the final hour – the ones who come into the world in concrete cubes, pick our fruits at the supermarket, and watch for an echo of the world on television – only we get to have an environment. And there’s no one but us to witness our own annihilation, as if it were just a simple change of scenery, to get indignant about the latest progress of the disaster, to patiently compile its encyclopedia.

What has congealed as an environment is a relationship to the world based on management, which is to say, on estrangement. A relationship to the world wherein we’re not made up just as much of the rustling trees, the smell of frying oil in the building, running water, the hubbub of schoolrooms, the mugginess of summer evenings. A relationship to the world where there is me and then my environment, surrounding me but never really constituting me. We have become neighbors in a planetary co-op owners’ board meeting. It’s difficult to imagine a more complete hell.

No material habitat has ever deserved the name “environment,” except perhaps the metropolis of today. The digitized voices making announcements, tramways with such a 21st century whistle, bluish streetlamps shaped like giant matchsticks, pedestrians done up like failed fashion models, the silent rotation of a video surveillance camera, the lucid clicking of the subway turnstyles supermarket checkouts, office time-clocks, the electronic ambiance of the cyber café, the profusion of plasma screens, express lanes and latex. Never has a setting been so able to do without the souls traversing it. Never has a surrounding been more automatic. Never has a context been so indifferent, and demanded in return – as the price of survival – such equal indifference from us. Ultimately the environment is nothing more than the relationship to the world that is proper to the metropolis, and that projects itself onto everything that would escape it.

It goes like this: they hired our parents to destroy this world, now they’d like to put us to work rebuilding it, and – to top it all off – at a profit. The morbid excitement that animates journalists and advertisers these days as they report each new proof of global warming reveals the steely smile of the new green capitalism, in the making since the 70s, which we waited for at the turn of the century but which never came. Well, here it is! It’s sustainability! Alternative solutions, that’s it too! The health of the planet demands it! No doubt about it anymore, it’s a green scene; the environment will be the crux of the political economy of the 21st century. A new volley of “industrial solutions” comes with each new catastrophic possibility.

The inventor of the H-bomb, Edward Teller, proposes shooting millions of tons of metallic dust into the stratosphere to stop global warming. NASA, frustrated at having to shelve its idea of an anti-missile shield in the museum of cold war horrors, suggests installing a gigantic mirror beyond the moon’s orbit to protect us from the sun’s now-fatal rays. Another vision of the future: a motorized humanity, driving on bio-ethanol from Sao Paulo to Stockholm; the dream of cereal growers the world over, for it only means converting all of the planet’s arable lands into soy and sugar beet fields. Eco-friendly cars, clean energy, and environmental consulting coexist painlessly with the latest Chanel ad in the pages of glossy magazines.

We are told that the environment has the incomparable merit of being the first truly global problem presented to humanity. A global problem, which is to say a problem that only those who are organized on a global level will be able to solve. And we know who they are. These are the very same groups that for close to a century have been the vanguard of disaster, and certainly intend to remain as such, for the small price of a change of logo. That EDF had the impudence to bring back its nuclear program as the new solution to the global energy crisis says plenty about how much the new solutions resemble the old problems.

From Secretaries of State to the back rooms of alternative cafés, concerns are always expressed in the same words, the same as they’ve always been. We have to get mobilized. This time it’s not to rebuild the country like in the post-war era, not for the Ethiopians like in the 1980s, not for employment like in the 1990s. No, this time it’s for the environment. It will thank you for it. Al Gore and degrowth movement stand side by side with the eternal great souls of the Republic to do their part in resuscitating the little people of the Left and the well-known idealism of youth. Voluntary austerity writ large on their banner, they work benevolently to make us compliant with the “coming ecological state of emergency.” The round and sticky mass of their guilt lands on our tired shoulders, coddling us to cultivate our garden, sort out our trash, and eco-compost the leftovers of this macabre feast.

Managing the phasing out of nuclear power, excess CO2 in the atmosphere, melting glaciers, hurricanes, epidemics, global over-population, erosion of the soil, mass extinction of living species… this will be our burden. They tell us, “everyone must do their part,” if we want to save our beautiful model of civilization. We have to consume a little less in order to be able to keep consuming. We have to produce organically in order to keep producing. We have to control ourselves in order to go on controlling. This is the logic of a world straining to maintain itself whilst giving itself an air of historical rupture. This is how they would like to convince us to participate in the great industrial challenges of this century. And in our bewilderment we’re ready to leap into the arms of the very same ones who presided over the devastation, in the hope that they will get us out of it.

Ecology isn’t simply the logic of a total economy; it’s the new morality of capital. The system’s internal state of crisis and the rigorous screening that’s underway demand a new criterion in the name of which this screening and selection will be carried out. From one era to the next, the idea of virtue has never been anything but an invention of vice. Without ecology, how could we justify the existence of two different food regimes, one “healthy and organic” for the rich and their children, and the other notoriously toxic for the plebes, whose offspring are damned to obesity. The planetary hyper-bourgeoisie wouldn’t be able to make their normal lifestyle seem respectable if its latest caprices weren’t so scrupulously “respectful of the environment.” Without ecology, nothing would have enough authority to gag any and all objections to the exorbitant progress of control.

Tracking, transparency, certification, eco-taxes, environmental excellence, and the policing of water, all give us an idea of the coming state of ecological emergency. Everything is permitted to a power structure that bases its authority in Nature, in health and in well-being.

“Once the new economic and behavioral culture has become common practice, coercive measures will doubtless fall into disuse of their own accord.” You’d have to have all the ridiculous aplomb of a TV crusader to maintain such a frozen perspective and in the same breath incite us to feel sufficiently “sorry for the planet” to get mobilized, whilst remaining anesthetized enough to watch the whole thing with restraint and civility. The new green-asceticism is precisely the self-control that is required of us all in order to negotiate a rescue operation where the system has taken itself hostage. From now on, it’s in the name of environmentalism that we must all tighten our belts, just as we did yesterday in the name of the economy. The roads could certainly be transformed into bicycle paths, we ourselves could perhaps, to a certain degree, be grateful one day for a guaranteed income, but only at the price of an entirely therapeutic existence. Those who claim that generalized self-control will spare us from an environmental dictatorship are lying: the one will prepare the way for the other, and we’ll end up with both.

As long as there is Man and Environment, the police will be there between them.

Everything about the environmentalist’s discourse must be turned upside-down. Where they talk of “catastrophes” to label the present system’s mismanagement of beings and things, we only see the catastrophe of its all too perfect operation. The greatest wave of famine ever known in the tropics (1876-1879) coincided with a global drought, but more significantly, it also coincided with the apogee of colonization. The destruction of the peasant’s world and of local alimentary practices meant the disappearance of the means for dealing with scarcity. More than the lack of water, it was the effect of the rapidly expanding colonial economy that littered the Tropics with millions of emaciated corpses. What presents itself everywhere as an ecological catastrophe has never stopped being, above all, the manifestation of a disastrous relationship to the world. Inhabiting a nowhere makes us vulnerable to the slightest jolt in the system, to the slightest climactic risk. As the latest tsunami approached and the tourists continued to frolic in the waves, the islands’ hunter-gatherers hastened to flee the coast, following the birds. Environmentalism’s present paradox is that under the pretext of saving the planet from desolation it merely saves the causes of its desolation.

The normal functioning of the world usually serves to hide our state of truly catastrophic dispossession. What is called “catastrophe” is no more than the forced suspension of this state, one of those rare moments when we regain some sort of presence in the world. Let the petroleum reserves run out earlier than expected; let the international flows that regulate the tempo of the metropolis be interrupted, let us suffer some great social disruption and some great “return to savagery of the population,” a “planetary threat,” the “end of civilization!” Either way, any loss of control would be preferable to all the crisis management scenarios they envision. When this comes, the specialists in sustainable development won’t be the ones with the best advice. It’s within the malfunction and short-circuits of the system that we find the elements of a response whose logic would be to abolish the problems themselves. Among the signatory nations to the Kyoto Protocol, the only countries that have fulfilled their commitments, in spite of themselves, are the Ukraine and Romania. Guess why. The most advanced experimentation with “organic” agriculture on a global level has taken place since 1989 on the island of Cuba. Guess why. And it’s along the African highways, and nowhere else, that auto mechanics has been elevated to a form of popular art. Guess how.

What makes the crisis desirable is that in the crisis the environment ceases to be the environment. We are forced to reestablish contact, albeit a potentially fatal one, with what’s there, to rediscover the rhythms of reality. What surrounds us is no longer a landscape, a panorama, a theater, but something to inhabit, something we need to come to terms with, something we can learn from. We won’t let ourselves be led astray by the one’s who’ve brought about the contents of the “catastrophe.” Where the managers platonically discuss among themselves how they might decrease emissions “without breaking the bank,” the only realistic option we can see is to “break the bank” as soon as possible and, in the meantime, take advantage of every collapse in the system to increase our own strength.

New Orleans, a few days after Hurricane Katrina. In this apocalyptic atmosphere, here and there, life is reorganizing itself. In the face of the inaction of the public authorities, who were too busy cleaning up the tourist areas of the French Quarter and protecting shops to help the poorer city dwellers, forgotten forms are reborn. In spite of occasionally strong-armed attempts to evacuate the area, in spite of white supremacist lynch mobs, a lot of people refused to leave the terrain. For the latter, who refused to be deported like “environmental refugees” all over the country, and for those who came from all around to join them in solidarity, responding to a call from a former Black Panther, self-organization came back to the fore. In a few weeks time, the Common Ground Clinic was set up. From the very first days, this veritable “country hospital” provided free and effective treatment to those who needed it, thanks to the constant influx of volunteers. For more than a year now, the clinic is still the base of a daily resistance to the clean-sweep operation of government bulldozers, which are trying to turn that part of the city into a pasture for property developers. Popular kitchens, supplies, street medicine, illegal takeovers, the construction of emergency housing, all this practical knowledge accumulated here and there in the course of a life, has now found a space where it can be deployed. Far from the uniforms and sirens.

Whoever knew the penniless joy of these New Orleans neighborhoods before the catastrophe, their defiance towards the state and the widespread practice of making do with what’s available wouldn’t be at all surprised by what became possible there. On the other hand, anyone trapped in the anemic and atomized everyday routine of our residential deserts might doubt that such determination could be found anywhere anymore. Reconnecting with such gestures, buried under years of normalized life, is the only practicable means of not sinking down with the world. The time will come when we take these up once more.

Seventh Circle

“We are building a civilized space here”

The first global slaughter, which from 1914 to 1918 did away with a large portion of the urban and rural proletariat, was waged in the name of freedom, democracy, and civilization. For the past five years, the so-called “war on terror” with its special operations and targeted assassinations has been pursued in the name of these same values. Yet the resemblance stops there: at the level of appearances. The value of civilization is no longer so obvious that it can brought to the natives without further ado. Freedom is no longer a name scrawled on walls, for today it is always followed, as if by its shadow, with the word “security.” And it is well known that democracy can be dissolved in pure and simple “emergency” edicts – for example, in the official reinstitution of torture in the US, or in France’s Perben II law.

In a single century, freedom, democracy and civilization have reverted to the state of hypotheses. Our leaders’ work from here on out will consist in shaping the material and moral as well as symbolic and social conditions in which these hypotheses can be more or less validated, in configuring spaces where they can seem to function. All means to these ends are acceptable, even the least democratic, the least civilized, the most repressive. This is a century in which democracy regularly presided over the birth of fascist regimes, civilization constantly rhymed – to the tune of Wagner or Iron Maiden – with extermination, and in which, one day in 1929, freedom- showed its two faces: a banker throwing himself from a window and a family of workers dying of hunger. Since then – let’s say, since 1945 – it’s taken for granted that manipulating the masses, secret service operations, the restriction of public liberties, and the complete sovereignty of a wide array of police forces were appropriate ways to ensure democracy, freedom and civilization. At the final stage of this evolution, we see the first socialist mayor of Paris putting the finishing touches on urban pacification with a new police protocol for a poor neighborhood, announced with the following carefully chosen words: “We’re building a civilized space here.” There’s nothing more to say, everything has to be destroyed.

Though it seems general in nature, the question of civilization is not at all a philosophical one. A civilization is not an abstraction hovering over life. It is what rules, takes possession of, colonizes the most banal, personal, daily existence. It’s what holds together that which is most intimate and most general. In France, civilization is inseparable from the state. The older and more powerful the state, the less it is a superstructure or exoskeleton of a society and the more it constitutes the subjectivities that people it. The French state is the very texture of French subjectivities, the form assumed by the centuries-old castration of its subjects. Thus it should come as no surprise that in their deliriums psychiatric patients are always confusing themselves with political figures, that we agree that our leaders are the root of all our ills, that we like to grumble so much about them and that this grumbling is the consecration that crowns them as our masters. Here, politics is not considered something outside of us but as part of ourselves. The life we invest in these figures is the same life that’s taken from us.

If there is a French exception, this is why. Everything, even the global influence of French literature, is a result of this amputation. In France, literature is the prescribed space for the amusement of the castrated. It is the formal freedom conceded to those who cannot accommodate themselves to the nothingness of their real freedom. That’s what gives rise to all the obscene winks exchanged, for centuries now, between the statesmen and men of letters in this country, as each gladly dons the other’s costume. That’s also why intellectuals here tend to talk so loud when they’re so meek, and why they always fail at the decisive moment, the only moment that would’ve given meaning to their existence, but that also would’ve had them banished from their profession.

There exists a credible thesis that modern literature was born with Baudelaire, Heine, and Flaubert as a repercussion of the state massacre of June 1848. It’s in the blood of the Parisian insurgents, against the silence surrounding the slaughter, that modern literary forms were born – spleen, ambivalence, fetishism of form, and morbid detachment. The neurotic affection that the French pledge to their Republic – in the name of which every smudge of ink assumes an air of dignity, and any pathetic hack is honored – underwrites the perpetual repression of its originary sacrifices. The June days of 1848 – 1,500 dead in combat, thousands of summary executions of prisoners, and the Assembly welcoming the surrender of the last barricade with cries of “Long Live the Republic!” – and the Bloody Week of 1871 are birthmarks no surgery can hide.

In 1945, Kojeve wrote:

“The “official” political ideal of France and of the French is today still that of the nation-State, of the ‘one and indivisible Republic.’ On the other hand, in the depths of its soul, the country understands the inadequacy of this ideal, of the political anachronism of the strictly “national” idea. This feeling has admittedly not yet reached the level of a clear and distinct idea: The country cannot, and still does not want to, express it openly. Moreover, for the very reason of the unparalleled brilliance of its national past, it is particularly difficult for France to recognize clearly and to accept frankly the fact of the end of the ‘national’ period of History and to understand all of its consequences. It is hard for a country which created, out of nothing, the ideological framework of nationalism and which exported it to the whole world to recognize that all that remains of it now is a document to be filed in the historical archives.”

This question of the nation-state and its mourning is at the heart of what for the past half-century can only be called the French malaise. We politely give the name of “alternation” to this twitchy indecision, this pendulum-like oscillation from left to right, then right to left; like a manic phase after a depressive one that is then followed by another, or like the way a completely rhetorical critique of individualism uneasily co-exists with the most ferocious cynicism, or the most grandiose generosity with an aversion to crowds. Since 1945, this malaise, which seems to have dissipated only during the insurrectionary fervor of May 68, has continually worsened. The era of states, nations and republics is coming to an end; this country that sacrificed all its life to these forms is still dumbfounded. The firestorm caused by Jospin’s simple sentence “the state can’t do everything” allowed us to glimpse the one that will ignite when it becomes clear that the state can no longer do anything at all. The feeling that we’ve been tricked is like a wound that is becoming increasingly infected. It’s the source of the latent rage that just about anything will set off these days. The fact that in this country the obituary of the age of nations has yet to be written is the key to the French anachronism, and to the revolutionary possibilities France still has in store.

Whatever their outcome may be, the role of the next presidential elections will be to signal the end of French illusions and the bursting of the historical bubble in which we are living – and which makes possible events like the anti-CPE movement, which was puzzled over by other countries as if it were some bad dream that escaped the 1970s. That’s why, deep down, no one wants these elections. France is indeed the red lantern of the western zone.

Today the West is the GI who dashes into Fallujah on an M1 Abrams tank, listening to heavy metal at top volume. It’s the tourist lost on the Mongolian plains, mocked by all, who clutches his credit card as his only lifeline. It’s the CEO who swears by the game Go. It’s the young girlchchases who chases happiness in clothes, guys, and moisturizing creams. It’s the Swiss human rights activist who travels to the four corners of the earth to show solidarity with all the world’s rebels – provided they’ve been defeated. It’s the Spaniard who couldn’t care less about political freedom once he’s been granted sexual freedom. It’s the art lover who wants us to be awestruck before the “modern genius” of a century of artists, from surrealism to Viennese actionism, all competing to see who could best spit in the face of civilization. It’s the cyberneticist who’s found a realistic theory of consciousness in Buddhism and the quantum physicist who’s hoping that dabbling in Hindu metaphysics will inspire new scientific discoveries.

The West is a civilization that has survived all the prophecies of its collapse with a singular stratagem. Just as the bourgeoisie had to deny itself as a class in order to permit the bourgeoisification of society as a whole, from the worker to the baron; just as capital had to sacrifice itself as a wage relation in order to impose itself as a social relation – becoming cultural capital and health capital in addition to finance capital; just as Christianity had to sacrifice itself as a religion in order to survive as an affective structure – as a vague injunction to humility, compassion, and weakness; so the West has sacrificed itself as a particular civilization in order to impose itself as a universal culture. The operation can be summarized like this: an entity in its death throws sacrifices itself as a content in order to survive as a form.

The fragmented individual survives as a form thanks to the “spiritual” technologies of counseling. Patriarchy survives by attributing to women all the worst attributes of men: willfulness, self-control, insensitivity. A disintegrated society survives by propagating an epidemic of sociability and entertainment. So it goes with all the great, outmoded fictions of the West maintaining themselves through artifices that contradict these fictions point by point.

There is no “clash of civilizations.” There is a clinically dead civilization kept alive by all sorts of life-support machines that spread a peculiar plague into the planet’s atmosphere. At this point it can no longer believe in a single one of its own “values”, and any affirmation of them is considered an impudent act, a provocation that should and must be taken apart, deconstructed, and returned to a state of doubt. Today Western imperialism is the imperialism of relativism, of the “it all depends on your point of view”; it’s the eye-rolling or the wounded indignation at anyone who’s stupid, primitive, or presumptuous enough to still believe in something, to affirm anything at all. You can see the dogmatism of constant questioning give its complicit wink of the eye everywhere in the universities and among the literary intelligentsias. No critique is too radical among postmodernist thinkers, as long as it maintains this total absence of certitude. A century ago, scandal was identified with any particularly unruly and raucous negation, while today it’s found in any affirmation that fails to tremble.

No social order can securely found itself on the principle that nothing is true. Yet it must be made secure. Applying the concept of “security” to everything these days is the expression of a project to securely fasten onto places, behaviors, and even people themselves, an ideal order to which they are no longer ready to submit. Saying “nothing is true” says nothing about the world but everything about the Western concept of truth. For the West, truth is not an attribute of beings or things, but of their representation. A representation that conforms to experience is held to be true. Science is, in the last analysis, this empire of universal verification. Since all human behavior, from the most ordinary to the most learned, is based on a foundation of unevenly formulated presuppositions, and since all practices start from a point where things and their representations can no longer be distinguished, a dose of truth that the Western concept knows nothing about enters into every life. We talk in the West about “real people,” but only in order to mock these simpletons. This is why Westerners have always been thought of as liars and hypocrites by the people they’ve colonized. This is why they’re envied for what they have, for their technological development, but never for what they are, for which they are rightly held in contempt. Sade, Nietzsche and Artaud wouldn’t be taught in schools if the kind of truth mentioned above was not discredited in advance. Containing all affirmations and deactivating all certainties as they irresistibly come to light-such is the long labor of the Western intellect. The police and philosophy are two convergent, if formally distinct, means to this end.

Of course, this imperialism of the relative finds a suitable enemy in every empty dogmatism, in whatever form of Marxist-Leninism, Salifism, or Neo-Nazism: anyone who, like Westerners, mistakes provocation for affirmation.

At this juncture, any strictly social contestation that refuses to see that what we’re faced with is not the crisis of a society but the extinction of a civilization becomes an accomplice in its perpetuation. It’s even become a contemporary strategy to critique this society in the vain hope of saving this civilization.

So we have a corpse on our backs, but we won’t be able to rid ourselves of it just like that. Nothing is to be expected from the end of civilization, from its clinical death. In and of itself, it can only be of interest to historians. It’s a fact, and it must be translated into a decision. Facts can be conjured away, but decision is political. To decide on the death of civilization, then to work out how it will happen: only decision will rid us of the corpse.

GET GOING!

We can no longer even see how an insurrection might begin. Sixty years of pacification and containment of historical upheavals, sixty years of democratic anesthesia and the management of events, have dulled our perception of the real, our sense of the war in progress. We need to start by recovering this perception.

It’s useless to get indignant about openly unconstitutional laws such as Perben II. It’s futile to legally protest the complete implosion of the legal framework. We have to get organized.

It’s useless to get involved in this or that citizens’ group, in this or that dead-end of the far left, or in the latest “community effort.” Every organization that claims to contest the present order mimics the form, mores and language of miniature states. Thus far, every impulse to “do politics differently” has only contributed to the indefinite spread of the state’s tentacles.

It’s useless to react to the news of the day; instead we should understand each report as a maneuver in a hostile field of strategies to be decoded, operations designed to provoke a specific reaction. It’s these operations themselves that should be taken as the real information contained in these pieces of news.

It’s useless to wait-for a breakthrough, for the revolution, the nuclear apocalypse or a social movement. To go on waiting is madness. The catastrophe is not coming, it is here. We are already situated within the collapse of a civilization. It is within this reality that we must choose sides.

To no longer wait is, in one way or another, to enter into the logic of insurrection. It is to once again hear the slight but always present trembling of terror in the voices of our leaders. Because governing has never been anything other than postponing by a thousand subterfuges the moment when the crowd will string you up, and every act of government is nothing but a way of not losing control of the population.

We’re setting out from a point of extreme isolation, of extreme weakness. An insurrectional process must be built from the ground up. Nothing appears less likely than an insurrection, but nothing is more necessary.

FIND EACH OTHER

Attach yourself to what you feel to be true.

Begin there.

An encounter, a discovery, a vast wave of strikes, an earthquake: every event produces truth by changing our way of being in the world. Conversely, any observation that leaves us indifferent, doesn’t affect us, doesn’t commit us to anything, no longer deserves the name truth. There’s a truth beneath every gesture, every practice, every relationship, and every situation. We usually just avoid it, manage it, which produces the madness of so many in our era. In reality, everything involves everything else. The feeling that one is living a lie is still a truth. It is a matter of not letting it go, of starting from there. A truth isn’t a view on the world but what binds us to it in an irreducible way. A truth isn’t something we hold but something that carries us. It makes and unmakes me, constitutes and undoes me as an individual; it distances me from many and brings me closer to those who also experience it. An isolated being who holds fast to a truth will inevitably meet others like her. In fact, every insurrectional process starts from a truth that we refuse to give up. During the 1980s in Hamburg, a few inhabitants of a squatted house decided that from then on they would only be evicted over their dead bodies. A neighborhood was besieged by tanks and helicopters, with days of street battles, huge demonstrations – and a mayor who, finally, capitulated. In 1940, Georges Guingouin, the “first French resistance fighter,” started with nothing other than the certainty of his refusal of the Nazi occupation. At that time, to the Communist Party, he was nothing but a “madman living in the woods,” until there were 20,000 madmen living in the woods, and Limoges was liberated.

Don’t back away from what is political in friendship

We’ve been given a neutral idea of friendship, understood as a pure affection with no consequences. But all affinity is affinity within a common truth. Every encounter is an encounter within a common affirmation, even the affirmation of destruction. No bonds are innocent in an age when holding onto something and refusing to let go usually leads to unemployment, where you have to lie to work, and you have to keep on working in order to continue lying. People who swear by quantum physics and pursue its consequences in all domains are no less bound politically than comrades fighting against a multinational agribusiness. They will all be led, sooner or later, to defection and to combat.

The pioneers of the workers’ movement were able to find each other in the workshop, then in the factory. They had the strike to show their numbers and unmask the scabs. They had the wage relation, pitting the party of capital against the party of labor, on which they could draw the lines of solidarity and of battle on a global scale. We have the whole of social space in which to find each other. We have everyday insubordination for showing our numbers and unmasking cowards. We have our hostility to this civilization for drawing lines of solidarity and of battle on a global scale.

Expect nothing from organizations.

Beware of all existing social milieus,

and above all, don’t become one.

It’s not uncommon, in the course of a significant breaking of the social bond, to cross paths with organizations – political, labor, humanitarian, community associations, etc. Among their members, one may even find individuals who are sincere – if a little desperate – who are enthusiastic – if a little conniving. Organizations are attractive due to their apparent consistency – they have a history, a head office, a name, resources, a leader, a strategy and a discourse. They are nonetheless empty structures, which, in spite of their grand origins, can never be filled. In all their affairs, at every level, these organizations are concerned above all with their own survival as organizations, and little else. Their repeated betrayals have often alienated the commitment of their own rank and file. And this is why you can, on occasion, run into worthy beings within them. But the promise of the encounter can only be realized outside the organization and, unavoidably, at odds with it.

Far more dreadful are social milieus, with their supple texture, their gossip, and their informal hierarchies. Flee all milieus. Each and every milieu is orientated towards the neutralization of some truth. Literary circles exist to smother the clarity of writing. Anarchist milieus to blunt the directness of direct action. Scientific milieus to withhold the implications of their research from the majority of people today. Sport milieus to contain in their gyms the various forms of life they should create. Particularly to be avoided are the cultural and activist circles. They are the old people’s homes where all revolutionary desires traditionally go to die. The task of cultural circles is to spot nascent intensities and to explain away the sense of whatever it is you’re doing, while the task of activist circles is to sap your energy for doing it. Activist milieus spread their diffuse web throughout the French territory, and are encountered on the path of every revolutionary development. They offer nothing but the story of their many defeats and the bitterness these have produced. Their exhaustion has made them incapable of seizing the possibilities of the present. Besides, to nurture their wretched passivity they talk far too much and this makes them unreliable when it comes to the police. Just as it’s useless to expect anything from them, it’s stupid to be disappointed by their sclerosis. It’s best to just abandon this dead weight.

All milieus are counter-revolutionary because they are only concerned with the preservation of their sad comfort.

Form communes

Communes come into being when people find each other, get on with each other, and decide on a common path. The commune is perhaps what gets decided at the very moment when we would normally part ways. It’s the joy of an encounter that survives its expected end. It’s what makes us say “we,” and makes that an event. What’s strange isn’t that people who are attuned to each other form communes, but that they remain separated. Why shouldn’t communes proliferate everywhere? In every factory, every street, every village, every school. At long last, the reign of the base committees! Communes that accept being what they are, where they are. And if possible, a multiplicity of communes that will displace the institutions of society: family, school, union, sports club, etc. Communes that aren’t afraid, beyond their specifically political activities, to organize themselves for the material and moral survival of each of their members and of all those around them who remain adrift. Communes that would not define themselves – as collectives tend to do – by what’s inside and what’s outside them, but by the density of the ties at their core. Not by their membership, but by the spirit that animates them.

A commune forms every time a few people, freed of their individual straitjackets, decide to rely only on themselves and measure their strength against reality. Every wildcat strike is a commune; every building occupied collectively and on a clear basis is a commune, the action committees of 1968 were communes, as were the slave maroons in the United States, or Radio Alice in Bologna in 1977. Every commune seeks to be its own base. It seeks to dissolve the question of needs. It seeks to break all economic dependency and all political subjugation; it degenerates into a milieu the moment it loses contact with the truths on which it is founded. There are all kinds of communes that wait neither for the numbers nor the means to get organized, and even less for the “right moment” – which never arrives.

GET ORGANIZED

Get organized in order to no longer have to work

We know that individuals are possessed of so little life that they have to earn a living, to sell their time in exchange for a modicum of social existence. Personal time for social existence: such is work, such is the market. From the outset, the time of the commune eludes work, it doesn’t function according to that scheme – it prefers others. Groups of Argentine piqueteros collectively extort a sort of local welfare conditioned by a few hours of work; they don’t clock their hours, they put their benefits in common and acquire clothing workshops, a bakery, putting in place the gardens that they need.

The commune needs money, but not because we need to earn a living. All communes have their black markets. There are plenty of hustles. Aside from welfare, there are various benefits, disability money, accumulated student aid, subsidies drawn off fictitious childbirths, all kinds of trafficking, and so many other means that arise with every mutation of control. It’s not for us to defend them, or to install ourselves in these temporary shelters or to preserve them as a privilege for those in the know. The important thing is to cultivate and spread this necessary disposition towards fraud, and to share its innovations. For communes, the question of work is only posed in relation to other already existing incomes. And we shouldn’t forget all the useful knowledge that can be acquired through certain trades, professions and well-positioned jobs.

The exigency of the commune is to free up the most time for the most people. And we’re not just talking about the number of hours free of any wage-labor exploitation. Liberated time doesn’t mean a vacation. Vacant time, dead time, the time of emptiness and the fear of emptiness – this is the time of work. There will be no more time to fill, but a liberation of energy that no “time” contains; lines that take shape, that accentuate each other, that we can follow at our leisure, to their ends, until we see them cross with others.

Plunder, cultivate, fabricate

Some former MetalEurop employees become bank robbers rather prison guards. Some EDF employees show friends and family how to rig the electricity meters. Commodities that “fell off the back of a truck” are sold left and right. A world that so openly proclaims its cynicism can’t expect much loyalty from proletarians.

On the one hand, a commune can’t bank on the “welfare state” being around forever, and on the other, it can’t count on living for long off shoplifting, nighttime dumpster diving at supermarkets or in the warehouses of the industrial zones, misdirecting government subsidies, ripping off insurance companies and other frauds, in a word: plunder. So it has to consider how to continually increase the level and scope of its self-organization. Nothing would be more logical than using the lathes, milling machines, and photocopiers sold at a discount after a factory closure to support a conspiracy against commodity society.

The feeling of imminent collapse is everywhere so strong these days that it would be hard to enumerate all of the current experiments in matters of construction, energy, materials, illegality or agriculture. There’s a whole set of skills and techniques just waiting to be plundered and ripped from their humanistic, street-culture, or eco-friendly trappings. Yet this group of experiments is but one part of all of the intuitions, the know-how, and the ingenuity found in slums that will have to be deployed if we intend to repopulate the metropolitan desert and ensure the viability of an insurrection beyond its first stages.

How will we communicate and move about during a total interruption of the flows? How will we restore food production in rural areas to the point where they can once again support the population density that they had sixty years ago? How will we transform concrete spaces into urban vegetable gardens, as Cuba has done in order to withstand both the American embargo and the liquidation of the USSR?

Training and learning

What are we left with, having used up most of the leisure authorized by market democracy? What was it that made us go jogging on a Sunday morning? What keeps all these karate fanatics, these DIY, fishing, or mycology freaks going? What, if not the need to fill up some totally idle time, to reconstitute their labor power or “health capital”? Most recreational activities could easily be stripped of their absurdity and become something else. Boxing has not always been limited to the staging of spectacular matches. At the beginning of the 20th century, as China was carved up by hordes of colonists and starved by long droughts, hundreds of thousands of its poor peasants organized themselves into countless open-air boxing clubs, in order to take back what the colonists and the rich had taken from them. This was the Boxer Rebellion. It’s never too early to learn and practice what less pacified, less predictable times might require of us. Our dependence on the metropolis – on its medicine, its agriculture, its police – is so great at present that we can’t attack it without putting ourselves in danger. An unspoken awareness of this vulnerability accounts for the spontaneous self-limitation of today’s social movements, and explains our fear of crises and our desire for “security.” It’s for this reason that strikes have usually traded the prospect of revolution for a return to normalcy. Escaping this fate calls for a long and consistent process of apprenticeship, and for multiple, massive experiments. It’s a question of knowing how to fight, to pick locks, to set broken bones and treat sicknesses; how to build a pirate radio transmitter; how to set up street kitchens; how to aim straight; how to gather together scattered knowledge and set up wartime agronomics; understand plankton biology; soil composition; study the way plants interact; get to know possible uses for and connections with our immediate environment as well as the limits we can’t go beyond without exhausting it. We must start today, in preparation for the days when we’ll need more than just a symbolic portion of our nourishment and care.

Create territories. Multiply zones of opacity

More and more reformists today agree that with “the approach of peak oil,” and in order to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” we will need to “relocalize the economy,” encourage regional supply lines, small distribution circuits, renounce easy access to imports from faraway, etc. What they forget is that what characterizes everything that’s done in a local economy is that it’s done under the table, in an “informal” way; that this simple ecological measure of relocalizing the economy implies nothing less than total freedom from state control. Or else total submission to it.

Today’s territory is the product of many centuries of police operations. People have been pushed out of their fields, then their streets, then their neighborhoods, and finally from the hallways of their buildings, in the demented hope of containing all life between the four sweating walls of privacy. The territorial question isn’t the same for us as it is for the state. For us it’s not about possessing territory. Rather, it’s a matter of increasing the density of the communes, of circulation, and of solidarities to the point that the territory becomes unreadable, opaque to all authority. We don’t want to occupy the territory, we want to be the territory.

Every practice brings a territory into existence – a dealing territory, or a hunting territory; a territory of child’s play, of lovers, of a riot; a territory of farmers, ornithologists, or flaneurs. The rule is simple: the more territories there are superimposed on a given zone, the more circulation there is between them, the harder it will be for power to get a handle on them. Bistros, print shops, sports facilities, wastelands, second-hand book stalls, building rooftops, improvised street markets, kebab shops and garages can all easily be used for purposes other than their official ones if enough complicities come together in them. Local self-organization superimposes its own geography over the state cartography, scrambling and blurring it: it produces its own secession.

Travel. Open our own lines of communication.

The principle of communes is not to counter the metropolis and its mobility with local slowness and rootedness. The expansive movement of commune formation should surreptitiously overtake the movement of the metropolis. We don’t have to reject the possibilities of travel and communication that the commercial infrastructure offers; we just have to know their limits. We just have to be prudent, innocuous. Visits in person are more secure, leave no trace, and forge much more consistent connections than any list of contacts on the internet. The privilege many of us enjoy of being able to “circulate freely” from one end of the continent to the other, and even across the world without too much trouble, is not a negligible asset when it comes to communication between pockets of conspiracy. One of the charms of the metropolis is that it allows Americans, Greeks, Mexicans, and Germans to meet furtively in Paris for the time it takes to discuss strategy.

Constant movement between friendly communes is one of the things that keeps them from drying up and from the inevitability of abandonment. Welcoming comrades, keeping abreast of their initiatives, reflecting on their experiences and making use of new techniques they’ve developed does more good for a commune than sterile self-examinations behind closed doors. It would be a mistake to underestimate how much can be decisively worked out over the course of evenings spent comparing views on the war in progress.

Remove all obstacles, one by one

It’s well known that the streets teem with incivilities. Between what they are and what they should be stands the centripetal force of the police, doing their best to restore order to them; and on the other side there’s us, the opposite centrifugal movement. We can’t help but delight in the fits of anger and disorder wherever they erupt. It’s not surprising that these national festivals that aren’t really celebrating anything anymore are now systematically going bad. Whether sparkling or dilapidated, the urban fixtures – but where do they begin? where do they end? – embody our common dispossession. Persevering in their nothingness, they ask for nothing more than to return to that state for good. Take a look at what surrounds us: all this will have its final hour. The metropolis suddenly takes on an air of nostalgia, like a field of ruins.

All the incivilities of the streets should become methodical and systematic, converging in a diffuse, effective guerrilla war that restores us to our ungovernability, our primordial unruliness. It’s disconcerting to some that this same lack of discipline figures so prominently among the recognized military virtues of resistance fighters. In fact though, rage and politics should never have been separated. Without the first, the second is lost in discourse; without the second the first exhausts itself in howls. When words like “enragés” and “exaltés” resurface in politics they’re always greeted with warning shots.

As for methods, let’s adopt the following principle from sabotage: a minimum of risk in taking the action, a minimum of time, and maximum damage. As for strategy, we will remember that an obstacle that has been cleared away, leaving a liberated but uninhabited space, is easily replaced by another obstacle, one that offers more resistance and is harder to attack.

No need to dwell too long on the three types of workers’ sabotage: reducing the speed of work, from “easy does it” pacing to the “work-to-rule” strike; breaking the machines, or hindering their function; and divulging company secrets. Broadened to the dimensions of the whole social factory, the principles of sabotage can be applied to both production and circulation. The technical infrastructure of the metropolis is vulnerable. Its flows amount to more than the transportation of people and commodities. Information and energy circulates via wire networks, fibers and channels, and these can be attacked. Nowadays sabotaging the social machine with any real effect involves reappropriating and reinventing the ways of interrupting its networks. How can a TGV line or an electrical network be rendered useless? How does one find the weak points in computer networks, or scramble radio waves and fill screens with white noise?

As for serious obstacles, it’s wrong to imagine them invulnerable to all destruction. The promethean element in all of this boils down to a certain use of fire, all blind voluntarism aside. In 356 BC, Erostratus burned down the temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the world. In our time of utter decadence, the only thing imposing about temples is the dismal truth that they are already ruins.

Annihilating this nothingness is hardly a sad task. It gives action a fresh demeanor. Everything suddenly coalesces and makes sense – space, time, friendship. We must use all means at our disposal and rethink their uses – we ourselves being means. Perhaps, in the misery of the present, “fucking it all up” will serve – not without reason – as the last collective seduction.

Flee visibility. Turn anonymity into an offensive position

In a demonstration, a union member tears the mask off of an anonymous person who has just broken a window. “Take responsibility for what you’re doing instead of hiding yourself.” To be visible is to be exposed, that is to say above all, vulnerable. When leftists everywhere continually make their cause more “visible” – whether that of the homeless, of women, or of undocumented immigrants – in hopes that it will get dealt with, they’re doing exactly the contrary of what must be done. Not making ourselves visible, but instead turning the anonymity to which we’ve been relegated to our advantage, and through conspiracy, nocturnal or faceless actions, creating an invulnerable position of attack. The fires of November 2005 offer a model for this. No leader, no demands, no organization, but words, gestures, complicities. To be socially nothing is not a humiliating condition, the source of some tragic lack of recognition – from whom do we seek recognition? – but is on the contrary the condition for maximum freedom of action. Not claiming your illegal actions, only attaching to them some fictional acronym – we still remember the ephemeral BAFT (Brigade Anti-Flic des Tarterêts)- is a way to preserve that freedom. Quite obviously, one of the regime’s first defensive maneuvers was the creation of a “banlieue” subject to treat as the author of the “riots of November 2005.” Just looking at the faces on some of this society’s somebodies illustrates why there’s such joy in being nobody.

Visibility must be avoided. But a force that gathers in the shadows can’t avoid it forever. Our appearance as a force must be pushed back until the opportune moment. The longer we avoid visibility, the stronger we’ll be when it catches up with us. And once we become visible our days will be numbered. Either we will be in a position to pulverize its reign in short order, or we’ll be crushed in no time.

Organize Self-Defense

We live under an occupation, under police occupation. Undocumented immigrants are rounded up in the middle of the street, unmarked police cars patrol the boulevards, metropolitan districts are pacified with techniques forged in the colonies, the Minister of the Interior makes declarations of war on “gangs” that remind us of the Algerian war – we are reminded of it every day. These are reasons enough to no longer let ourselves be beaten down, reasons enough to organize our self-defense.

To the extent that it grows and radiates, a commune begins to see the operations of power target that which constitutes it. These counterattacks take the form of seduction, of recuperation, and as a last resort, brute force. For a commune, self-defense must be a collective fact, as much practical as theoretical. Preventing an arrest, gathering quickly and in large numbers against eviction attempts and sheltering one of our own, will not be superfluous reflexes in coming times. We cannot ceaselessly reconstruct our bases from scratch. Let’s stop denouncing repression and instead prepare to meet it.

It’s not a simple affair, for we expect a surge in police work being done by the population itself – everything from snitching to occasional participation in citizens’ militias. The police forces blend in with the crowd. The ubiquitous model of police intervention, even in riot situations, is now the cop in civilian clothes. The effectiveness of the police during the last anti-CPE demonstrations was a result of plainclothes officers mixing among us and waiting for an incident before revealing who they are: gas, nightsticks, tazers, detainment; all in strict coordination with demonstration stewards. The mere possibility of their presence was enough to create suspicion amongst the demonstrators – who’s who? – and to paralyze action. If we agree that a demonstration is not merely a way to stand and be counted but a means of action, we have to equip ourselves better with resources to unmask plainclothes officers, chase them off, and if need be snatch back those they’re trying to arrest.

The police are not invincible in the streets, they simply have the means to organize, train, and continually test new weapons. Our weapons, on the other hand, are always rudimentary, cobbled-together, and often improvised on the spot. They certainly don’t have a hope of rivaling theirs in firepower, but can be used to hold them at a distance, redirect attention, exercise psychological pressure or force passage and gain ground by surprise. None of the innovations in urban guerilla warfare currently deployed in the French police academies are sufficient to respond rapidly to a moving multiplicity that can strike a number of places at once and that tries to always keep the initiative.

Communes are obviously vulnerable to surveillance and police investigations, to policing technologies and intelligence gathering. The waves of arrests of anarchists in Italy and of eco-warriors in the US were made possible by wiretapping. Everyone detained by the police now has his or her DNA taken to be entered into an ever more complete profile. A squatter from Barcelona was caught because he left fingerprints on fliers he was distributing. Tracking methods are becoming better and better, mostly through biometric techniques. And if the distribution of electronic identity cards is instituted, our task will just be that much more difficult. The Paris Commune found a partial solution to the keeping of records: they burned down City Hall, destroying all the public records and vital statistics. We still need to find the means to permanently destroy computerized databases.

INSURRECTION

The commune is the basic unit of partisan reality. An insurrectional surge may be nothing more than a multiplication of communes, their coming into contact and forming of ties. As events unfold, communes will either merge into larger entities or fragment. The difference between a band of brothers and sisters bound “for life” and the gathering of many groups, committees and gangs for organizing the supply and self-defense of a neighborhood or even a region in revolt, is only a difference of scale, they are all communes.

A commune tends by its nature towards self-sufficiency and considers money, internally, as something foolish and ultimately out of place. The power of money is to connect those who are unconnected, to link strangers as strangers and thus, by making everything equivalent, to put everything into circulation.

The cost of money’s capacity to connect everything is the superficiality of the connection, where deception is the rule. Distrust is the basis of the credit relation. The reign of money is, therefore, always the reign of control. The practical abolition of money will happen only with the extension of communes. Communes must be extended while making sure they do not exceed a certain size, beyond which they lose touch with themselves and give rise, almost without fail, to a dominant caste. It would be preferable for the commune to split up and to spread in that way, avoiding such an unfortunate outcome.

The uprising of Algerian youth that erupted across all of Kabylia in the spring of 2001 managed to take over almost the entire territory, attacking police stations, courthouses and every representation of the state, generalizing the revolt to the point of compelling the unilateral retreat of the forces of order and physically preventing the elections. The movement’s strength was in the diffuse complementarity of its components-only partially represented by the interminable and hopelessly male-dominated village assemblies and other popular committees. The “communes” of this still-simmering insurrection had many faces: the young hotheads in helmets lobbing gas canisters at the riot police from the rooftop of a building in Tizi Ouzou; the wry smile of an old resistance fighter draped in his burnous; the spirit of the women in the mountain villages, stubbornly carrying on with the traditional farming, without which the blockades of the region’s economy would never have been as constant and systematic as they were.

Make the most of every crisis

“So it must be said, too, that we won’t be able to treat the entire French population. Choices will have to be made.” This is how a virology expert sums up, in a September 7, 2005 article in Le Monde, what would happen in the event of a bird flu pandemic. “Terrorist threats,” “natural disasters,” “virus warnings,” “social movements” and “urban violence” are, for society’s managers, so many moments of instability where they reinforce their power, by the selection of those who please them and the elimination of those who make things difficult. Clearly these are, in turn, opportunities for other forces to consolidate or strengthen one another as they take the other side.

The interruption of the flow of commodities, the suspension of normality (it’s sufficient to see how social life returns in a building suddenly deprived of electricity to imagine what life could become in a city deprived of everything) and police control liberate potentialities for self-organization unthinkable in other circumstances. People are not blind to this. The revolutionary workers’ movement understood it well, and took advantage of the crises of the bourgeois economy to gather strength. Today, Islamic parties are strongest when they’ve been able to intelligently compensate for the weakness of the state – as when they provided aid after the earthquake in Boumerdes, Algeria, or in the daily assistance offered the population of southern Lebanon after it was ravaged by the Israeli army.

As we mentioned above, the devastation of New Orleans by hurricane Katrina gave a certain fringe of the North American anarchist movement the opportunity to achieve an unfamiliar cohesion by rallying all those who refused to be forcefully evacuated. Street kitchens require building up provisions beforehand; emergency medical aid requires the acquisition of necessary knowledge and materials, as does the setting up of pirate radios. The political richness of such experiences is assured by the joy they contain, the way they transcend individual stoicism, and their manifestation of a tangible reality that escapes the daily ambience of order and work.

In a country like France, where radioactive clouds stop at the border and where we aren’t afraid to build a cancer research center on the former site of a nitrogen fertilizer factory that has been condemned by the EU’s industrial safety agency, we should count less on “natural” crises than on social ones. It is usually up to the social movements to interrupt the normal course of the disaster. Of course, in recent years the various strikes were primarily opportunities for the government and corporate management to test their ability to maintain a larger and larger “minimum service,” to the point of reducing the work stoppage to a purely symbolic dimension, causing little more damage than a snowstorm or a suicide on the railroad tracks. By going against established activist practices through the systematic occupation of institutions and obstinate blockading, the high-school students’ struggle of 2005 and the struggle against the CPE-law reminded us of the ability of large movements to cause trouble and carry out diffuse offensives. In all the affinity groups they spawned and left in their wake, we glimpsed the conditions that allow social movements to become a locus for the emergence of new communes.

Sabotage every representative authority. Spread the palaver. Abolish general assemblies.

The first obstacle every social movement faces, long before the police proper, are the unions and the entire micro-bureaucracy whose job it is to control the struggle. Communes, collectives and gangs are naturally distrustful of these structures. That’s why the parabureaucrats have for the past twenty years been inventing coordination committees and spokes councils that seem more innocent because they lack an established label, but are in fact the ideal terrain for their maneuvers. When a stray collective makes an attempt at autonomy, they won’t be satisfied until they’ve drained the attempt of all content by preventing any real question from being addressed. They get fierce and worked up not out of passion for debate but out of a passion for shutting it down. And when their dogged defense of apathy finally does the collective in, they explain its failure by citing a lack of political consciousness. It must be noted that in France the militant youth are well versed in the art of political manipulation, thanks largely to the frenzied activity of various trotskyist factions. They could not be expected to learn the lesson of the conflagration of November 2005: that coordinations are unnecessary where coordination exists, organizations aren’t needed when people organize themselves.

Another reflex is to call a general assembly at the slightest sign of movement, and vote. This is a mistake. The business of voting and deciding a winner, is enough to turn the assembly into a nightmare, into a theater where all the various little pretenders to power confront each other. Here we suffer from the bad example of bourgeois parliaments. An assembly is not a place for decisions but for palaver, for free speech exercised without a goal.

The need to assemble is as constant among humans as the necessity of making decisions is rare. Assembling corresponds to the joy of feeling a common power. Decisions are vital only in emergency situations, where the exercise of democracy is already compromised. The rest of the time, “the democratic character of decision making” is only a problem for the fanatics of process. It’s not a matter of critiquing assemblies or abandoning them, but of liberating the speech, gestures, and interplay of beings that take place within them. We just have to see that each person comes to an assembly not only with a point of view or a motion, but with desires, attachments, capacities, forces, sadnesses and a certain disposition toward others, an openness. If we manage to set aside the fantasy of the General Assembly and replace it with an assembly of presences, if we manage to foil the constantly renewed temptation of hegemony, if we stop making the decision our final aim, then there is a chance for a kind of massification, one of those moments of collective crystallization where a decision suddenly takes hold of beings, completely or only in part.

The same goes for deciding on actions. By starting from the principle that “the action in question should govern the assembly’s agenda” we make both vigorous debate and effective action impossible. A large assembly made up of people who don’t know each other is obliged to call on action specialists, that is, to abandon action for the sake of its control. On the one hand, people with mandates are by definition hindered in their actions, on the other hand, nothing hinders them from deceiving everyone.

There’s no ideal form of action. What’s essential is that action assume a certain form, that it give rise to a form instead of having one imposed on it. This presupposes a shared political and geographical position – like the sections of the Paris Commune during the French Revolution – as well as the circulation of a shared knowledge. As for deciding on actions, the principle could be as follows: each person should do their own reconnaissance, the information would then be put together, and the decision will occur to us rather than being made by us. The circulation of knowledge cancels hierarchy; it equalizes by raising up. Proliferating horizontal communication is also the best form of coordination among different communes, the best way to put an end to hegemony.

Block the economy, but measure our blocking power by our level of self-organization

At the end of June 2006 in the State of Oaxaca, the occupations of city halls multiply, and insurgents occupy public buildings. In certain communes, mayors are kicked out, official vehicles are requisitioned. A month later, access is cut off to certain hotels and tourist compounds. Mexico’s Minister of Tourism speaks of a disaster “comparable to hurricane Wilma.” A few years earlier, blockades had become the main form of action of the revolt in Argentina, with different local groups helping each other by blocking this or that major road, and continually threatening, through their joint action, to paralyze the entire country if their demands were not met. For years such threats have been a powerful lever for railway workers, truck drivers, and electrical and gas supply workers. The movement against the CPE in France did not hesitate to block train stations, ring roads, factories, highways, supermarkets and even airports. In Rennes, only three hundred people were needed to shut down the main access road to the town for hours and cause a 40-kilometer long traffic jam.

Jam everything-this will be the first reflex of all those who rebel against the present order. In a delocalized economy where companies function according to “just-in-time” production, where value derives from connectedness to the network, where the highways are links in the chain of dematerialized production which moves from subcontractor to subcontractor and from there to another factory for assembly, to block circulation is to block production as well.

But a blockade is only as effective as the insurgents’ capacity to supply themselves and to communicate, as effective as the self-organization of the different communes. How will we feed ourselves once everything is paralyzed? Looting stores, as in Argentina, has its limits; as large as the temples of consumption are, they are not bottomless pantries. Acquiring the skills to provide, over time, for one’s own basic subsistence implies appropriating the necessary means of its production. And in this regard, it seems pointless to wait any longer. Letting two percent of the population produce the food of all the others – the situation today – is both a historical and a strategic anomaly.

Liberate territory from police occupation. If possible, avoid direct confrontation.

“This business shows that we are not dealing with young people making social demands, but with individuals who are declaring war on the Republic,” noted a lucid cop about recent clashes. The push to liberate territory from police occupation is already underway, and can count on the endless reserves of resentment that the forces of order have marshaled against it. Even the “social movements” are gradually being seduced by the riots, just like the festive crowds in Rennes who fought the cops every Thursday night in 2005, or those in Barcelona who destroyed a shopping district during a botellion. The movement against the CPE witnessed the recurrent return of the Molotov cocktail. But on this front certain banlieues remain unsurpassed. Specifically, when it comes to the technique they’ve been perfecting for some time now: the surprise attack. Like the one on October 13, 2006 in Epinay. A private-security team headed out after getting a report of something stolen from a car. When they arrived, one of the security guards “found himself blocked by two vehicles parked diagonally across the street and by more than thirty people carrying metal bars and pistols who threw stones at the vehicle and used tear gas against the police officers.” On a smaller scale, think of all the local police stations attacked in the night: broken windows, burnt-out cop cars.

One of the results of these recent movements is the understanding that henceforth a real demonstration has to be “wild,” not declared in advance to the police. Having the choice of terrain, we can, like the Black Bloc of Genoa in 2001, bypass the red zones and avoid direct confrontation. By choosing our own trajectory, we can lead the cops, including unionist and pacifist ones, rather than being herded by them. In Genoa we saw a thousand determined people push back entire buses full of carabinieri, then set their vehicles on fire. The important thing is not to be better armed but to take the initiative. Courage is nothing, confidence in your own courage is everything. Having the initiative helps.

Everything points, nonetheless, toward a conception of direct confrontations as that which pins down opposing forces, buying us time and allowing us to attack elsewhere – even nearby. The fact that we cannot prevent a confrontation from occurring doesn’t prevent us from making it into a simple diversion. Even more than to actions, we must commit ourselves to their coordination. Harassing the police means that by forcing them to be everywhere they can no longer be effective anywhere.

Every act of harassment revives this truth, spoken in 1842: “The life of the police agent is painful; his position in society is as humiliating and despised as crime itself… Shame and infamy encircle him from all sides, society expels him, isolates him as a pariah, society spits out its disdain for the police agent along with his pay, without remorse, without regrets, without pity… The police badge that he carries in his pocket documents his shame.” On November 21, 2006, firemen demonstrating in Paris attacked the riot police with hammers and injured fifteen of them. This by way of a reminder that wanting to “protect and serve” can never be an excuse for joining the police.

Take up arms. Do everything possible to make their use unnecessary. Against the army, the only victory is political.

There is no such thing as a peaceful insurrection. Weapons are necessary: it’s a question of doing everything possible to make using them unnecessary. An insurrection is more about taking up arms and maintaining an “armed presence” than it is about armed struggle. We need to distinguish clearly between being armed and the use of arms. Weapons are a constant in revolutionary situations, but their use is infrequent and rarely decisive at key turning points: August 10th 1792, March 18th 1871, October 1917. When power is in the gutter, it’s enough to walk over it.

Because of the distance that separates us from them, weapons have taken on a kind of double character of fascination and disgust that can be overcome only by handling them. An authentic pacifism cannot mean refusing weapons, but only refusing to use them. Pacifism without being able to fire a shot is nothing but the theoretical formulation of impotence. Such a priori pacifism is a kind of preventive disarmament, a pure police operation. In reality, the question of pacifism is serious only for those who have the ability to open fire. In this case, pacifism becomes a sign of power, since it’s only in an extreme position of strength that we are freed from the need to fire.

From a strategic point of view, indirect, asymmetrical action seems the most effective kind, the one best suited to our time: you don’t attack an occupying army frontally. That said, the prospect of Iraq-style urban guerilla warfare, dragging on with no possibility of taking the offensive, is more to be feared than to be desired. The militarization of civil war is the defeat of insurrection. The Reds had their victory in 1921, but the Russian Revolution was already lost.

We must consider two kinds of state reaction. One openly hostile, one more sly and democratic. The first calls for our out and out destruction, the second, a subtle but implacable hostility, seeks only to recruit us. We can be defeated both by dictatorship and by being reduced to opposing only dictatorship. Defeat consists as much in losing the war as in losing the choice of which war to wage. Both are possible, as was proven by Spain in 1936: the revolutionaries there were defeated twice-over, by fascism and by the republic.

When things get serious, the army occupies the terrain. Whether or not it engages in combat is less certain. That would require that the state be committed to a bloodbath, which for now is no more than a threat, a bit like the threat of using nuclear weapons for the last fifty years. Though it has been wounded for a long while, the beast of the state is still dangerous. A massive crowd would be needed to challenge the army, invading its ranks and fraternizing with the soldiers. We need a March 18th 1871. When the army is in the street, we have an insurrectionary situation. Once the army engages, the outcome is precipitated. Everyone finds herself forced to take sides, to choose between anarchy and the fear of anarchy. An insurrection triumphs as a political force. It is not impossible to defeat an army politically.

Depose authorities at a local level

The goal of any insurrection is to become irreversible. It becomes irreversible when you’ve defeated both authority and the need for authority, property and the taste for appropriation, hegemony and the desire for hegemony. That is why the insurrectionary process carries within itself the form of its victory, or that of its defeat. Destruction has never been enough to make things irreversible. What matters is how it’s done. There are ways of destroying that unfailingly provoke the return of what has been crushed. Whoever wastes their energy on the corpse of an order can be sure that this will arouse the desire for vengeance. Thus, wherever the economy is blocked and the police are neutralized, it is important to invest as little pathos as possible in overthrowing the authorities. They must be deposed with the most scrupulous indifference and derision.

In times like these, the end of centralized revolutions reflects the decentralization of power. Winter Palaces still exist but they have been relegated to assaults by tourists rather than revolutionary hordes. Today it is possible to take over Paris, Rome, or Buenos Aires without it being a decisive victory. Taking over Rungis would certainly be more effective than taking over the Elysée Palace. Power is no longer concentrated in one point in the world; it is the world itself, its flows and its avenues, its people and its norms, its codes and its technologies. Power is the organization of the metropolis itself. It is the impeccable totality of the world of the commodity at each of its points. Anyone who defeats it locally sends a planetary shock wave through its networks. The riots that began in Clichy-sous-Bois filled more than one American household with joy, while the insurgents of Oaxaca found accomplices right in the heart of Paris. For France, the loss of centralized power signifies the end of Paris as the center of revolutionary activity. Every new movement since the strikes of 1995 has confirmed this. It’s no longer in Paris that the most daring and consistent actions are carried out. To put it bluntly, Paris now stands out only as a target for raids, as a pure terrain to be pillaged and ravaged. Brief and brutal incursions from the outside strike at the metropolitan flows at their point of maximum density. Rage streaks across this desert of fake abundance, then vanishes. A day will come when this capital and its horrible concretion of power will lie in majestic ruins, but it will be at the end of a process that will be far more advanced everywhere else.

All power to the communes!

In the subway, there’s no longer any trace of the screen of embarrassment that normally impedes the gestures of the passengers. Strangers make conversation without making passes. A band of comrades conferring on a street corner. Much larger assemblies on the boulevards, absorbed in discussions. Surprise attacks mounted in city after city, day after day. A new military barracks has been sacked and burned to the ground. The evicted residents of a building have stopped negotiating with the mayor’s office; they settle in. A company manager is inspired to blow away a handful of his colleagues in the middle of a meeting. There’s been a leak of files containing the personal addresses of all the cops, together with those of prison officials, causing an unprecedented wave of sudden relocations. We carry our surplus goods into the old village bar and grocery store, and take what we lack. Some of us stay long enough to discuss the general situation and figure out the hardware we need for the machine shop. The radio keeps the insurgents informed of the retreat of the government forces. A rocket has just breached a wall of the Clairvaux prison. Impossible to say if it has been months or years since the “events” began. And the prime minister seems very alone in his appeals for calm.

US extrajudicial reach extends to assassination of spouses and progeny

Posted on August 5, 2009 by Eric Verlo

In a demonstration that they are closing in on Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud, the US military is claiming success with a drone attack on his father-in-law’s Waziristan home, where a missile killed Mehsud’s second wife, three unidentified civilians, and wounded four children.

The US has posted a $5 million bounty on the head of Mehsud, based on charges he bore responsibility in Benazir Bhutto’s 2007 assassination, and for other suicide bombings. All charges he denies, but the Taliban leader won’t face his accusers long enough for unmanned drones to launch a missile his way.

Zanghra village had been targeted by US drones before, but no bounty had yet been announced for Mehsud’s extended family members. That proved to be no indication that US drone pilots in Nevada would not be carving notches for them.

While American warriors, by doing their missile targeting from the continental US, have made legitimate military targets of Air Force bases in Nevada, California and Colorado. Now they expand the battlefield to include combatant wives, relatives and progeny. As it should be.

(Imagine the relatives and cronies of our economic-war combatants, of our war criminal leaders, and our war industry profiteers; their folks at home contemplating their own culpability and vulnerability to suffer for the crimes by which their benefactors were able to enrich them. You don’t have to be remote piloting the Predators or Reapers, nor raining the Hellfire missiles upon America’s civilian adversaries to merit responsibility — it’s enough to be hollering along to “Courtesy of the Red White and Blue.”)

And, as in the case of Baitullah Mehsud, the extra-judicial assassinations are acceptable for even non-combatants, suspected-of-crimes-only, and their family and extended family.

Arguments for and against Anarchism

by Albert Meltzer

Introduction

The Historical Background to Anarchism

It is not without interest that what might be called the anarchist approach goes back into antiquity; nor that there is an anarchism of sorts in the peasant movements that struggled against State oppression over the centuries. But the modern anarchist movement could not claim such precursors of revolt as its own more than the other modern working class theories. To trace the modern Anarchist movement we must look closer to our own times. While there existed libertarian and non-Statist and federalist groups, which were later termed anarchistic in retrospect, before the middle of the nineteenth century, it was only about then that they became what we now call Anarchists.

In particular, we may cite three philosophical precursors of Anarchism, Godwin, Proudhon, and perhaps Hegel. None of these was in fact an Anarchist, though Proudhon first used the word in its modern sense (taking it from the French Revolution, when it was first used politically and not entirely pejoratively). None of them engaged in Anarchist activity or struggle, and Proudhon engaged in parliamentary activity. One of the poorest, though ostensibly objective, books on Anarchism, Judge Eltzbacher’s Anarchism, describes Anarchism as a sort of hydra-headed theory some of which comes from Godwin or Proudhon or Stirner (another who never mentions anarchism), or Kropotkin, each a different variation on a theme. The book may be tossed aside as valueless except in its description of what these particular men thought. Proudhon did not write a programme for all time, nor did Kropotkin in his time write for a sect of Anarchists. But many other books written by academics are equally valueless: many professors have a view of anarchism based on the popular press. Anarchism is neither a mindless theory of destruction nor, despite some liberal-minded literary conceptions, is it hero-worship of people or institutions, however liberated they might be.

Godwin is the father of the Stateless Society movement, which diverged into three lines. One, that of the Anarchists (with which we will deal). Two, that of classic American Individualism, which included Thoreau and his school, sometimes thought of as anarchistic, but which equally gives rise to the ‘rugged individualism’ of modern ‘libertarian’ capitalism and to the pacifist cults of Tolstoy and Gandhi which have influenced the entire hippy cult. Individualism (applying to the capitalist and not the worker) has become a right-wing doctrine.

The second line of descent from Godwin is responsible for the ‘Pacifist Anarchist’ approach or the ‘Individualist Anarchist’ approach that differs radically from revolutionary anarchism in the first line of descent. It is sometimes too readily conceded that ‘this is, after all, anarchism’. Pacifist movements, and the Gandhian in particular, are usually totalitarian and impose authority (even if only by moral means); the school of Benjamin Tucker — by virtue of their individualism — accepted the need for police to break strikes so as to guarantee the employer’s ‘freedom’. All this school of so-called Individualists accept, at one time or another, the necessity of the police force, hence for Government, and the definition of anarchism is no Government.

The third school of descent from Godwin is simple liberalism, or conservative individualism.

Dealing here with the ‘first line of descent’ from Godwin, his idea of Stateless Society was introduced into the working class movement by Ambrose Cuddon (jun). His revolutionary internationalist and non-Statist socialism came along the late days of English Chartism. It was in sympathy with the French Proudhonians. Those who in Paris accepted Proudhon’s theory did not consider themselves Anarchists, but Republicans. They were for the most part self-employed artisans running their own productive businesses. The whole of French economy was geared both to the peasantry and to the artisan — this, the one-person business of printer, bookbinder, wagon and cart maker, blacksmith, dressmaker, goldsmith, diamond polisher, hat maker as distinct from the factory or farm worker of the time, who worked for an employer. Independent, individualistic and receiving no benefit from the State but the dubious privilege of paying taxes and fighting, they were at that time concerned to find out an economic method of survival and to withstand encroaching capitalism.

Marx described them as ‘petty bourgeois’, which had a different meaning in the nineteenth century. He justifiably claimed that these ‘petty bourgeois’ were not as disciplined as the then factory workers (he despised farm workers) and said that when they were forced into industry they did not faithfully follow the line laid down by a disciplined party from outside the class, but were independent of mind and troublesome to organisation imposed from above, their frustration often leading to violence. They moved to anarchism and through syndicalism spread it through the working class. (This claim is echoed by Marxists nowadays, when the term ‘petty bourgeois’ means something utterly different — solicitors and chartered accountants — and thus makes Marx’s quite sensible analysis sound utterly ridiculous.)

These French and English movements came together in the First International. The International Workingmen’s Association owed its existence to Marx, indirectly to Hegelian philosophy. But within the International, there was not only the ‘scientific socialism’ of Marx, but also Utopian Socialism, Blanquism (working-class republicanism), English Trade Unionism, German-authoritarian and opportunistic socialism, and Spanish, Swiss, and Italian stateless socialism, as well as national Republicanism and the various federalistic trends.

Bakunin was not the ‘father’ of anarchism, as often described. He was not an anarchist until later in life. He learned his federalism and socialism from the Swiss workers of the Jura, and gave expression to the ideas of the Godwinian and Proudhonian ‘federalists’, or non-State socialists. In many countries, Spain and Italy in particular, it was Bakunin’s criticism of the ideas of Marx that gave the federalist movement its definition. (While to Anarchists, Marx is of course “the villain of the piece” in the International, it must be granted that without Marx defining one form of socialism there would have been no clash, no Bakunin defining the opposite.)

There had grown up by 1869 a very noticeable trend within the International that was called ‘Bakuninist’ which was in one line from Godwin and another from Proudhon. When the Paris Commune exploded in the face of the International, it was the parting of the ways (though this was deferred a little longer and seemed to follow personal lines). From the non-Anarchists and Marxists knew by their different analyses and interpretations and actions during the Paris Commune, that they were separate.

All the same, for many years Anarchists continued to form part of the Socialist Movement that included Marxists and Social-Democrats. Marx had not succeeded in building a mass movement. The German socialist movement was more influenced by Lassalle; English socialism by reformist and Christian traditions of radical nonconformity. Only after Marx’s death, when Marxism was the official doctrine of German social-democracy, were Anarchists finally excluded from Socialist Internationals; social-democracy marched on to its own schism, that between English Liberalism on the one hand, and social-democracy on the other; and that between ‘majority’ Social-Democrats (Bolsheviks, actually never more than a minority) and reformism.

There were no such schisms at that time in the anarchist movement as such. Popular opinion made such figures as Tolstoy into (what he never claimed to be) an anarchist (he was not; neither in the normal sense of the words was he a Christian or a Pacifist, as popularly supposed, but his idolators always know better than he), but derived from the ‘second line’ of Godwinism like many other caricature-Anarchists. What we may call ‘mainstream’ anarchism was coherent and united, and was given body by the writings of a number of theoreticians, such as Peter Kropotkin.

After the bloody suppression of the Paris Commune, and repression in many parts of the world — notably Tsarist Russia, Anarchism passed into its well-known stage of individual terrorism. It fought back and survived and gave birth to (or was carried forward in) the revolutionary syndicalist movement which began in France. It lost ground after the First World War, because of the revival of patriotic feeling, the growth of reformist socialism, and the rise of fascism; and while it made a contribution to the Russian Revolution, it was defeated by the Bolshevik counterrevolution. It was seen in both resistance and in a constructive role in the Spanish Revolution of 1936.

By the time of the Second World War, Anarchism had been tried and tested in many revolutionary situations and labour struggles. Alternative forms had been tried and discarded; the German Revolution had introduced the idea of Workers Councils. The experience of the American IWW had shown the possibilities of industrial unionism and ‘how one can build the new society in the shell of the old’. In the ‘flint against flint’ argument against Marxist Communism, the lesson of what socialism without freedom meant in Russia, and the failure of reformist socialism everywhere, the anarchist doctrine was shaped.

There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects of the philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been worked out in practice rather than from a philosophy. Very often, a bourgeois writer comes along and writes down what has already been worked out in practice by workers and peasants; he is attributed by bourgeois historians as being a leader, and by successive bourgeois writers (citing the bourgeois historians) as being one more case that proves the working class relies on bourgeois leadership.

More often, bourgeois academics borrow the name ‘Anarchism’ to give expression to their own liberal philosophies or, alternatively, picking up their cue from journalists, assorted objects of their dislike. For some professors and teachers, ‘Anarchism’ is anything from Tolstoyism to the IRA, from drug-taking to militant-trade unionism, from nationalism to bolshevism, from the hippy cult to Islamic fundamentalism, from the punk scene to violent resistance to almost anything! This is by no means an exaggeration but a sign of academic illiteracy, to be distinguished from journalists who in the 1960s obeyed a directive to call anything Marxist-Leninist that involved action as ‘Anarchist’ and anything Anarchist as ‘nationalist’.

Inalienable Tenets of Anarchism

That Mankind is Born Free

Our rights are inalienable. Each person born on the world is heir to all the preceding generations. The whole world is ours by right of birth alone. Duties imposed as obligations or ideals, such as patriotism, duty to the State, worship of God, submission to higher classes or authorities, respect for inherited privileges, are lies.

If Mankind is Born Free, Slavery is Murder

Nobody is fit to rule anybody else. It is not alleged that Mankind is perfect, or that merely through his/her natural goodness (or lack of same) he/she should (or should not) be permitted to rule. Rule as such causes abuse. There are no superpeople nor privileged classes who are above ‘imperfect Mankind’ and are capable or entitled to rule the rest of us. Submission to slavery means surrender of life.

As Slavery is Murder, so Property is Theft

The fact that Mankind cannot enter into his/her natural inheritance means that part of it has been taken from him or her, either by means of force (old, legalised conquest or robbery) or fraud (persuasion that the State or its servants or an inherited property-owning class is entitled to privilege). All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the fruits of their labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only the possession of independent means enables one to be free of the economy (that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing himself to the self-employed artisan, he said “property is liberty”, which seems at first sight a contradiction with his dictum that it was theft). But the principle of ownership, in that which concerns the community, is at the bottom of inequity.

If Property is Theft, Government is Tyranny

If we accept the principle of a socialised society, and abolish hereditary privilege and dominant classes, the State becomes unnecessary. If the State is retained, unnecessary Government becomes tyranny since the governing body has no other way to maintain its hold. “Liberty without socialism is exploitation: socialism without liberty is tyranny” (Bakunin).

If Government is Tyranny, Anarchy is Liberty

Those who use the word “Anarchy” to mean disorder or misrule are not incorrect. If they regard Government as necessary, if they think we could not live without Whitehall directing our affairs, if they think politicians are essential to our well-being and that we could not behave socially without police, they are right in assuming that Anarchy means the opposite to what Government guarantees. But those who have the reverse opinion, and consider Government to be tyranny, are right too in considering Anarchy, no Government, to be liberty. If Government is the maintenance of privilege and exploitation and inefficiency of distribution, then Anarchy is order.

The Class Struggle

Revolutionary Anarchism is based on the class struggle, though it is true that even the best of Anarchist writers, to avoid Marxist phraseology, may express it differently. It does not take the mechanistic view of the class struggle taken by Marx and Engels that only the industrial proletariat can achieve socialism, and that the inevitable and scientifically-predictable victory of this class represents the final victory. On the contrary: had anarchism been victorious in any period before 1914, it would have been a triumph for the poorer peasants and artisans, rather than among the industrial proletariat amongst whom the concept of anarchy was not widespread.

As we have said, Marxists accuse the Anarchists of being petty bourgeois. Using the term in its modern sense, it makes Marx look ridiculous. Marx was distinguishing between the bourgeois (with full rights of citizens as employers and merchants) and the minor citizens — i.e. self-employed workers). When Marx referred to the Anarchists being ‘petty bourgeois’ who when they were forced by monopoly capitalism and the breakdown of a peasant-type society into industry, and being therefore ‘frustrated’ and turning to violence, because they did not accept the discipline taken for granted by the industrial proletariat, he was expressing something that was happening, especially after the breaking up of the independent Communes of Paris and Barcelona, and the breakdown of the capitalist economy, in his day. But, with the change of meaning, to think of today’s Anarchists as frustrated bowler-hatted bank managers turning to violence because they have been forced into industry is straining one’s sense of the ridiculous.

Marx thought the industrial proletariat was not used to thinking for itself — not having the leisure or independence of the self-employed — and was therefore capable ‘of itself’ of a ‘trade union mentality, needing the leadership of an ‘educated class’ coming from outside, and presumably not being frustrated. This in his day was thought of as the scholars as an elite, in later times the students.

Marx certainly did not foresee the present day, when the students as a frustrated class, having absorbed the Marxist teachings, are being forced into monotonous jobs or unemployment and create the New Left with its own assumptions and preoccupations, but are clearly not a productive class. Any class may be revolutionary in its day and time; only a productive class may be libertarian in nature, because it does not need to exploit. The industrialisation of most Western countries meant that the industrial proletariat replaced the old ‘petty bourgeois’ class and what is left of them became capitalist instead of working class, because it had to expand and therefore employ in order to survive. But recent tendencies in some Western countries are tending to the displacement of the working class and certainly the divorcing of them from their productive role. Mining, shipbuilding, spinning, manufacturing industries, and whole towns are closed down and people are forced to into service jobs like car-park attendants or supermarket assistants which are not productive and so carry no industrial muscle.

When the industrial proletariat developed, the Anarchist movement developed into anarcho-syndicalism, something coming from the workers themselves, contrary to the idea that they needed a leadership from outside the class or could not think beyond the wage struggle. Anarcho-syndicalism is the organisation at places of work both to carry on the present struggle and eventually to take over the places of work. It would thus be more effective than the orthodox trade-union movement and at the same time be able to bypass a State-run economy in place of capitalism.

Neither Anarchism nor Marxism has ever idealised the working class (except sometimes by way of poetic licence in propaganda!) — this was a feature of the Christian Socialists. Nor was it ever suggested that they could not be reactionary, In fact, deprivation of education makes the poorer class on the whole the more resistant to change. It would be trying the reader’s patience too much to reiterate all the ‘working class are not angels’ statements purporting to refute that the working class could not run their own places of work. Only in heaven, so I am informed, will it be necessary for angels to take over the functions of management!

Organisation and Anarchism

Those belonging to or coming from authoritarian parties find it hard to accept that one can organise without ‘some form’ of Government. Therefore they conclude, and it is a general argument against Anarchism, that ‘Anarchists do not believe in organisation’. But Government is of people, organisation is of things.

There is a belief that Anarchists ‘break up other people’s organisations but are unable to build their own’, often expressed where dangerous, hierarchical, or useless organisations dominate and prevent libertarian ones being created. It can well be admitted that particular people in particular places have failed in the task of building Anarchist organisations but in many parts of the world they do exist

An organisation may be democratic or dictatorial, it may be authoritarian or libertarian, and there are many libertarian organisations, not necessarily anarchist, which prove that all organisation need not be run from the top downwards.

Many trade unions, particularly if successful, in order to keep their movement disciplined and an integral part of capitalist society, become (if they do not start so) authoritarian; but how many employers’ organisations impose similar discipline? If they do, their affiliates would walk out if it did not suit their interests. They must come to free agreement because some have the means to resist intimidation. Even when they resort to fascism to keep the workers down, the employers retain their own independence and financial power; Nazism goes too far for smaller capitalists in that after having crushed the workers it also limits, or even negates, the independence of the class that put it in power.

Only the most revolutionary unions of the world have ever learned how to keep the form of organisation of mass labour movements on an informal basis, with a minimum of central administration, and with every decision referred back to the workers on the shop floor.

The Role of an Anarchist in an Authoritarian Society

“The only place for a free man in a slave society is in prison,” said Thoreau (but he only spent a night there). It is a stirring affirmation but not one to live by, however true it is. The revolutionary must be prepared for persecution and prosecution, but only the masochist would welcome it. It must always remain an individual action and decision as to how far one can be consistent in one’s rebellion: it is not something that can be laid down. Anarchists have pioneered or participated in many forms of social rebellion and reconstruction, such as libertarian education, the formation of labour movements, collectivisation, individual direct action in its many forms and so on.

When advocating anarcho-syndicalist tactics, it is because social changes for the whole of society can only come about through a change of the economy. Individual action may serve some liberatory process, it’s true. Individuals, for example, may retire to a country commune, surround themselves with like-minded people and ignore the world so long as it overlooks them. They might certainly meanwhile live in a free economy if they could overcome certain basic problems, but it would not bring about social change.

This is not to decry individual action, far from it. Whole nations can live under dictatorship and sacrifice whole peoples one by one, and nobody will do anything about it until one individual comes along and cuts off the head of the hydra, in other words, kills the tyrant. But genocide can take place before the individual with the courage, ability, and luck required comes along.

In such cases, we see waiting for mass action as queuing up for the gas chamber (it can be literally so). We do not think “the proletariat can do no wrong” and most of all; by submission, it can. But organisation is strength. We advocate mass action because it is effective and because the proletariat has in its hands the means to destroy the old economy and build anew. The Free Society will come about through workers’ control councils taking over the places of work and by conscious destruction of the authoritarian structure. They can be built within unionisation of the work-forces of the present time.

Workers Control

When advocating workers’ control for the places of work, we differ from those who are only advocating a share of management or imagine there can be an encroachment upon managerial function by the workers within capitalism. Self-management within a capitalist society is a sizeable reform, and is occasionally attainable when the work-force is in a particularly strong position, or more often when the work is sufficiently hazardous to defy outside inspection. That is all it is, however, and is not to be confused with syndicalism, except in the sense that the syndicalist thinks the future society should be self-controlled. We want no authority supreme to that of the workers, not even one of their delegates.

This probably means breaking industry down into small units, and we accept this. We reject ‘nationalisation’ = State control.

It should not be (but unfortunately is) necessary to explain that there are, of course, ways of personal liberation other than class action, and in some cases these may be necessary lest one starve. But none of these can at present help to change society. The self-employed artisan no longer plays an important part as in Proudhon’s day (and perhaps this will be revived with a new society). One can get satisfaction working on one’s own, one may have to do so by economic necessity, but the means of changing society rest with those who are working in the basic economy.

Trends over recent years show the importance of the self-employed artisan. As major industries are decimated by the ruling class because no longer necessary to capitalism, a means of integrating those working outside mainstream capitalism will increasingly need to be found if we are to achieve change. It was the necessity of finding this in a previous reversal of capitalist trends that led to the original formation of anarcho-syndicalism.

The Anarchist as Rebel

It is not unknown for the individual Anarchist to fight on alone, putting forward his or her ideas in a hostile environment. There were many examples in the past of Anarchists struggling on alone, sometimes only one in the country. It is less the case at the present time when there are usually many people calling themselves Anarchists, though perhaps only one or two in a locality who really are so, and not just adopting the label to describe rebellion when young.

Anarchists in such circumstances may fight alone for the principle of Anarchism, but usually participate in other struggles, such as anti-militarism, anti-imperialism, anti-nationalism or solely within the content of the class struggle or they may form organisations of their own.

It is no part of the case for Anarchism to say that the profession of its ideas changes peoples’ character; or that the movement invites itself to be judged on anyone who happened to be around at any one time. Organisations they create may become reformist or authoritarian; people themselves may become corrupted by money or power. All we can say is that ultimately such corruption normally leads them to drop the name ‘Anarchist’, as standing in their way. If ever the term became ‘respectable’, no doubt we would have to choose a fresh one, equally connotative of libertarian rebellion — at present it can still stand as descriptive though increasingly misused.

In all organisations, personalities play a part and it may be that in different countries different schisms may occur. Some say that there are different types of Anarchism. Syndicalism, Communism, individualism, pacifism, have all been cited as such. This is not so. If one wishes to cause a schism, purely on personal reasons or because one wishes to become more quietist or reformist, it is no doubt convenient to pick a name as a ‘banner’. But in reality there are not different forms of Anarchism. Anarchist-Communism, in any definition (usually that of Kropotkin), means a method of socialism without Government, not a different style of anarchism. An alternative idea, called Anarchist-Collectivism, once favoured by Spanish Anarchists, was found in practice to be exactly the same. If one is going to have no rule from above, one cannot lay down a precise economic plan for the future, and Communism and collectivisation controlled from below upwards proved to be no different from each other, or from syndicalism, a permanent means of struggle toward the same goal.

Communism, in the sense used by Anarchists, is a society based on the community. Collectivism is a division of the commune into economic units. Unless the commune is very small — based upon the village — it has to be divided into smaller units, collectives, so that all can participate and not just their elected representatives. Otherwise it would merely be industrial democracy. While free Communism is an aim, syndicalism is a method of struggle. It is the union of workers within the industrial system attempting to transform it into a free Communistic society.

State Communism is not an alternative Communism to free Communism, but its opposite. It is the substitution of the State or the Party for the capitalist class. Communism is not necessarily Anarchist, even if it is not State Communism but the genuine authoritarian form of Communism (total State control without having degenerated into absolute power from above, or even governmental dominated socialisation). Syndicalism is not necessarily revolutionary and even revolutionary syndicalism (the idea that workers can seize places of work through factory organisation) need not be libertarian, as it can go hand-in-hand with the idea of a political party exercising political control. This is why we use the mouthful: anarcho-syndicalism. Workers control of production, community control from below, no Government from above.

Nonviolence

Is pacifism a trend within Anarchism? Though phoney Anarchism contains a large streak of pacifism, being militant liberalism and renouncing any form of positive action for Anarchism, pacifism (implying extreme nonviolence, and not just anti-militarism) is authoritarian. The cult of extreme nonviolence always implies an elite, the Satyagrahi of Gandhi, for instance, who keeps everyone else in check either by force or by moral persuasion. The general history of the orthodox pacifist movements is that they attempt to dilute a revolutionary upsurge but come down on the side of force either in an imperialist war or by condoning aggressive actions by governments they support.

Both India and Israel were once the realisation of the pacifist ideals; the atom bomb was largely developed and created by nonviolent pacifists and by League of Nations enthusiasts; the Quakers as peace-loving citizens but commercial tyrants and colonialists are notorious. In recent times, many who rejected Anarchist actions of the Spanish Resistance (though claiming to be “nonviolent Anarchists”) had no difficulty late in supporting far more “violent” actions of different nationalist movements.

It is true to say that there are Anarchists who consider pacifism compatible with Anarchism in the sense that they advocate the use of non-violent methods though usually nowadays advocating this on the grounds of expediency or tactics rather than principle. But this should not be confused with the so-called “Tolstoyan Anarchism” (neither Tolstoyan or Anarchist). Tolstoy considered the Anarchists were right in everything but that they believed in revolution to achieve it. His idea of social change was “within one” (which is to say in the sky). He did not advocate nonviolent revolution, he urged nonresistance as a way of life compatible with Christian teaching though not practised as such.

One has to say also that this refers to pacifism in the Anglo-American sense, somewhat worse in Great Britain where the concept of legalised conscientious objection led to a dialogue between pacifism and the State. In countries where objection to military service remained a totally illegal act, the concept of pacifism is not necessarily extreme nonviolence.

Immediate Aims of the Anarchist

A “reformist” is not someone who brings about reforms (usually they do not, they divert attention to political manoeuvring): it is someone who can see no further than amelioration of certain parts of the system. It is necessary to agitate for the abolition of certain laws or for the immediate reform of some, but to idealise the agitation for reforms, or even the interests in reform of minorities or even whole communities, is reformist. This reformism has permeated the whole of what is now called the left wing. It creates new industries in the interests of aspiring bureaucrats allegedly guarding over minority interests, preventing people in those minorities from acting on their own behalf. This is noticeable even in women’s struggles which the left marginalises as if it were a minority issue.

Sometimes laws are more harmful than the offences they legislate against. No law is worth passing even to hope which are socially beneficial on the surface, since they are sure to be interpreted wrongly and are often used to bolster the private opinion of judges who carry them out. The old British custom of sentencing poorer classes to death for minor thefts above a small pecuniary value was not abolished by Parliament nor by the judges, but by the final refusal of juries to admit when forced to a guilty verdict that the goods were above that value.

The Anarchists can as individuals or in groups press for reforms but as Anarchists they seek to change minds and attitudes, not to pass laws. When minds are changed, laws become obsolete and, sooner or later, law enforcers are unable to operate them. Prohibition in America, the Poll Tax in Britain, are instances. At that point the law has to adapt itself to public opinion.

The Witchcraft Act remained on the statute books until some 40 years ago and it was enforced right up to the time of its abolition though the Public Prosecutor only dared to use a few of its clauses for fear of ridicule. It was abolished for political reasons but the equally ridiculous Blasphemy Act was retained, being unquestioned by Parliament until the agitation by Muslims that it was clearly unfair that one could be fined for offending Christianity while one could not be executed for offending Islam.

The ‘1381’ law was useful for squatters to persuade people they could occupy neglected buildings without offence, the odd thing being that the law did not exist. The myth was enough provided people believed in it.

One has to carry on a resistance to any and every form of tyranny. When governments use their privileges threatened, they drop the pretence of democracy and benevolence which most politicians prefer. Anarchists are forced to become what politicians describe them as: ‘agents of disorder’, though there is a lot more to Anarchism to that, and all ‘agents of disorder’ are not necessarily Anarchists.

A Marxist-Leninist would say, “Anarchists are able to bring about disorder but cannot seize power. Hence they are unable to make take advantage of the situations they create, and the bourgeoisie, regrouping its strength, turns to fascism”.

A Tory would say that Marxist-Leninists are Anarchists “because they wish to create Anarchy to create the conditions in which they would seize power”. Both are absurdities. Anarchists can, of course, “seize power” no less than anyone just as a teetotaler can get blind drunk, but they would hardly continue to merit the name. Anarchists in power would not necessarily be any better or worse than anyone else, and they might even be as bad as Communists or fascists. There is no limit of degradation to which power cannot bring anyone even with the loftiest principles. We would hope that being unprepared for power, they would be ineffective. Their task is not to “seize power” (those who use this term show that they seek personal power for themselves) but to abolish the bases of power. Power to all means power to nobody in particular.

If one leaves the wild beast of State power partially wounded, it becomes more ferocious than ever, a raging wild beast that will destroy or be destroyed. This is why Anarchists form organisations to bring about revolutionary change. The nature of Anarchism as an individualistic creed in the true sense has often caused many to say such organisations might well be left to ‘spontaneity’, ‘voluntary will’ and so on — in other words, there can be no organisation (except for propaganda only) until the entire community forms its own organisations. This is a recipe for a sort of armchair Anarchism which never gets off the ground, but at the same time with a point that cannot be ignored — until the whole community has control of its own organisations, such bodies cannot and should not take over the social and economic means of life.

It is shown by events that unity of resistance is needed against repression, that there must be united forms of action. Even when workers’ councils are formed, there may be representatives on them from political factions, united outside on party lines and able to put forward a united front within such councils and thus to dominate and ultimately destroy them. That is why we need an organised movement to destroy such efforts at totalitarianism. In some cases one may need the ultimate sanction of acts of individual terrorism to be used against leadership from within quite as much as that imposed from above. This form of specific terrorism has nothing in common with nationalist terrorism, which by its nature is as indiscriminate as State terrorism, for all that it is judged in a far harsher light. Anarchist terrorism is against individual despots, ruling or endeavouring to rule. Nationalist terrorism is a form of war against peoples. State terrorism is the abuse of power.

Workers’ Self-Defence

The Marxist-Leninists in time of revolution rely upon the formation of a Red Army. Under the control of one party, the “Red” Army is the old army under a red flag. We have seen many times how this can become a major instrument of repression, just as a nationalist army under a new flag can also become one, sometimes even before it attains power.

The very formation of an army to supersede workers’ militias will destroy the Revolution (Spain 1936). Che Guevara introduced a new romantic ideas of the Red Army as the advance guard of a peasants army — combining the spontaneity of a Makhnovista (Ukraine 1917) and Zapatista/Magonista (Mexican-Anarchistic) peasant army with the disciplined ideas of Party intellectuals. In such cases, after the initial enthusiasm carries through to victory, the disciplined leadership takes over; if it fails, the leaders run off elsewhere.

The self-defence notions of anarcho-syndicalists are that workers use arms in their own defence against the enemy at hand, and that the democratic notion of workers’ militias prevails. While there may be technical leadership, instruction and duties such as are at present in the hands of noncommissioned officers up to the rank of sergeant, there should be no officers whose job is to command, or lower-ranking NCOs to transmit the chain of command.

The idea of an armed people is derided by many so-called military and political experts, but only is used by workers in their own interests. If smaller nations use it successfully, they admit that a citizens’ army — that is to say, a nonprofessional one that can hang up its rifles and go back to work, coming out when called upon — is possible provided only that, as in the case of (say) Israel or South Africa, they obey nationalistic and aggressive policies from above. Providing they don’t maintain the force in international-class interests, the “experts” are prepared to admit the efficiency of such an army remaining democratically controlled within its own ranks.

How Will a Revolution Come About?

We do not know. When a revolutionary situation presents itself — as it did with the occupation of factories in France, 1936 and 1968; as it did in Spain, 1936 with the fascist uprising; or with the breakdown of the Russian Armies, 1917; or in many other times and places; we are ready for it or we are not (and usually not). Many times the workers are partially ready and leave the “wounded wild animal” of Statism fiercer than ever. It may be purely individual action that sets off the spark. But only if, at that period, there is a conscious movement towards a Free Society that throws off the shackles of the past, will that situation become a social revolution. The problem today that faces us is that half the world is prepared to rise almost at any opportune time, but have no military power to resist repression and no industrial muscle to sustain it. The other half of the world has such might, but no real desire to rise, being either bought off by capitalism or succumbing to persuasion.

Bringing About the New Society

What Constitutes an Authoritarian Society?

Exploitation — Manipulation — Suppression. The organs of repression consist of many arms of the State:

The Apparatus of Government: The legislature, the judicature, the monarchy, the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the Police etc.

The Apparatus of Persuasion: The educational system, the media, including TV, radio and the press, the Church, and even forms of apparent dissent that in reality condition us to accept the present system — the parliamentary Opposition is the most obvious, but many other alternatives to the accepted system too, e.g., revolution presented as merely one in lifestyle or musical preference, academic teaching of Marxist-Leninism etc.

The Apparatus of Exploitation: The monetary system; financial control; the Banks; the Stock Exchange; individual, collective, and State employers; land ownership. Under capitalism there is no escaping this.

Most political reformers have some part of the unfree system they wish to abolish Republicans would abolish the monarchy, Secularists would abolish or disestablish the Church, Socialists would (or used to) wish to abolish the apparatus of exploitation; pacifists would abolish the Army. Anarchism is unique in wishing to abolish all. The only true definition of an Anarchist is one who wishes to believes it desirable to abolish all; who believe it possible to abolish all, the sooner the better; and who works to bring such abolition about.

There are many, usually on the left, who think it desirable but impossible, many on the right who think it only too probable but undesirable. Others may be sympathetic to Anarchism as both desirable and possible but refrain from action in its favour. To borrow a phrase from another part of the forest, they may be fellow travelers of Anarchism.

The Police are the cornerstone of the State (though sometimes, in extreme cases, the Government of the day needs to use the armed forces in lieu of, or in addition to the police — in some countries this has led to replacement or control of the Government by the army so long as the officers are tightly in control).

Only Anarchism believes in abolition of the Police, and this is the most hotly-disputed argument of Anarchism. Yet the police force as we know it is a comparatively modern phenomenon, fiercely resisted when introduced for reasons which have since been proved up to the hilt, such as the ability of the Police to introduce or bolster up a dictatorship, known indeed as a police state. Without control of the Police, debates at Westminster become as sterile of result as debates in the West Kensington Debating Society (and probably less interesting).

With German money, supplied by Helphand-Parvus, Lenin was able to return to Russia and pay Lettish mercenaries to act as Police. He was the only politician in a position to do so and in this way Bolshevik success was achieved. The Nazis in their turn created murder gangs that roamed the streets, which were tacitly tolerated by the Republican Police, but their victory came when they controlled the Police by legal means.

Can One Do Without the State?

It seems to be generally agreed that we can do without some organs of the State: can we do without them all, altogether? Some are admittedly useless, some decorative, some have impossible intentions, others are necessary for class rule, some may well be useful and carry out functions essential to any society.

One cannot do the work of another. If the monarchy has no Army it cannot save you from foreign invasion any more than the police will get you into heaven if you do not have a Church! Any commonsense codification of conduct would be better than the farrago of laws we have at present, which occupy both the lawyers and politicians, the one interpreting the apparent desires of the other.

It is true that the Government can and sometimes does take over certain necessary social functions, as do every organ of the State however repressive. The railways were not always run by the State but belonged to capitalists, and could equally in a future society belong to the workers. It would be foolish to say that if mines belonged to the State, that proves the State is necessary, or we would have no coal without it. The Army is often given socially necessary jobs, such as flood or earthquake relief; it is sometimes used as a scab labour force, such as in strikes; it is sometimes used as a police force. This is because the State does not want the breakup of a society that supports it.

Even the police at times fulfill some necessary functions — one goes to the police station to find lost dogs simply because it happens to be there and has taken over that function. It does not follow that we should never find lost dogs if there were no Police, and that we need to be clubbed over the head in times of social unrest so that old ladies can need not lose their dogs. For insurance purposes, all car owners report their lost or stolen cars to the Police, but it does not mean that the police force as such is indispensable.

Just as insurance companies would find some way of seeing they could not pay out on fraudulent claims if there were no police force, society would see to it that it could protect itself. Unfortunately, having a police force atrophies the ability of society to defend itself. People have lost all sense of social organisation and control. They can be put in terror by a few kids running wild, however young. The only reaction is to run to the Police, and the Police cannot cope.

There was an old superstition that if the Church excommunicated a country, it was under a terrible disaster. One could not be married, buried, leave property, do business in safety, be educated, be tended while sick, in a country which was excommunicated. The superstition was not an idle one, so long as people believed in the Church. If the country was banned from the communion of believers, the hospitals (run by the Church) were closed; there could be no trust in business (the clerics administered oaths and without them no promises need be kept); no education (they ran the schools); children could indeed be begotten (no way of preventing that by the Church!), but not christened, and were therefore barred from the community of believers and under a threat, as they thought, of eternal damnation, while unmarried parents could not leave property to their “illegitimate” children. The physical reality of Hell was not necessary to make excommunication effective. We are wiser now. But one superstition has been replaced by another. It has been transferred to belief in the State. If we were to reject Government there would be no education (for Government, national or local, controls the schools — with obvious exceptions), no hospitals (ditto), nobody could carry one working because the Government regulates its conduct, and so on. The truth all the time has been that not the Church and not the State but we the People have worked for everything we’ve got, and if we have not done so they have not provided for us. Even the privileged have been maintained by us not them.

The Money Myth

With the State myth comes a second myth — the money myth. The value of money is dependent on the strength of the State. When Governments collapse, their money is worthless. For years American crooks travelled Europe offering to change Confederate dollars, worth nothing since the Southern States had lost the Civil War, presenting them to unsuspecting Europeans as valid U.S. dollars — until they became collectors’ pieces and were worth more than several U.S. dollars! At that point the Federal Government utilised the original printing plants to publish Confederate dollars and gave them away with bubble-gum, lest their own currency became devalued.

When the Kaiser’s Germany collapsed, Imperial marks were useless. When the Spanish Republic was defeated, the banks simply canceled the value of its money. The story is endless. Yet according to a legend many still believe, the wealth of the country is to be found at Waterlow’s printing works. As the notes roll off the press, so our wealth is created, and if this ceased we should be impoverished! The banks have come up with an alternative in printing their own credit cards. Another alternative myth, now dated, was that the money printed had to correspond with a quantity of closely-guarded gold buried in a mysterious vault, after having been dug up under tight security from mines thousands of miles away. However, Governments have long since defaulted on the premises behind this myth (though they still continue the ritual). The newer governmental myth is that if too many notes are printed we shall have inflation which will make us all poor, so to prevent this we must be prepared to endure conditions of stringency and poverty, lose jobs and homes, or in other words become poor.

During the war, rationing of food and clothes meant that what counted was coupons, by which it was hoped to ensure there were fair shares of what was available. As the money system continued, a black market in commodities was inevitable, but rationing gave an idea of what State Socialism — without money — would be like. If there were too many coupons printed there would be no point in the scheme. Money is another form of rationing, by which one set of people get more than another. Wage struggles are fights to get a bigger slice of the cake. The wealthy are those who have first access to slicing the cake. But neither money nor coupons make any difference to the size of the cake, they are simply means of dealing with its distribution, whether fairly — or more likely — unfairly. So essential is money to the obtaining of goods in a State society, it sounds humorous to say money is a myth — “I don’t care if it’s mythical, give me more” — but myth it is.

Many worthy people believe if Lady X did not spend her money on a yacht, that money could somehow be transformed into an x-ray apparatus for the hospital. They do not understand, it would seem, that yacht builders cannot produce x-ray machines. Others think that those on National Assistance are supported by those at work — yet the margin of unemployment is essential to the State as a pitfall to make the incentives to work stick. Others believe there is a relation between their wages going up and the wages received by other people going down. In a competitive society, however, one gets what one is able to command.

The Myth of Taxation

There is a patent absurdity in supposing that those who work and produce are helped by those who profit from the system and do nothing. It is equally absurd to suppose that the rich help the poor by providing work or charity. As Brendan Behan commented to someone who pointed out how much the Guinness family had done for the poor people of Dublin — “It’s nothing compared to what the poor people of Dublin have done for the Guinness family”. Taxation perpetuates the myth that those with more money help those with less. Taxation grabs money out of the pockets of the less well-off even before they have a chance to look at it. The rich dress up their accounts by means of professional advisors. But aside from that, money does not create wealth, it is muscle, brain, and natural resources that do. Money is used to restrict the application of human endeavour. It is possible to print money, or arrange credit, when it is in the interests of money manipulators to do so. When they wish to go into recession, they do so by withdrawing money and credit. Recession is not a natural disaster like famine, drought, floods, or earthquakes though it is presented as such.

The Effect of Immigration

The large scale employer looking at greater profitability or the way to cut costs has several options open, the easiest and laziest being to cut wages. If the workers are well-organised they can resist this so there are two options open to the major capitalist. Either take the factories to where the cheap labour is or take the cheap labour to where the factories are. The first option entails great pollution, as a rule — not that they ever care about that — and in some cases they have to go into areas of political instability. It is cheaper to move the cheap labour.

Having thus encouraged immigration, wearing the financial hat as it were, the capitalist in the capacity of a right-wing politician, dons the political hat and denounces immigration. This has the advantage of setting worker against worker, fuelled by religious and/or racial antipathies which can persist for generations, and have the added bonus of inducing the worker to support the right wing electorally. It does the capitalist no harm to have a work force hated by those who surround them, or in fear of deportation if they step out of line. Nor does it harm the capitalist, in a political context, to have issues such as immigration replace the basic issue of the wage and monetary system. It only becomes harmful from that point of view when a fascist force such as Hitler’s gains such armed might that it can ignore the wishes of the capitalists which gave them that power and strives for its own superiority.

The Abolition of the Wage and Monetary Systems

“Socialism” has become so diffused a term today that it is used of almost any reformist or indeed positively counter-revolutionary movement that wishes to use the term and covers a multitude of ideas from liberalism to tyranny, but in reality the essentials of any socialistic theory are the abolition of the wage and monetary systems. This is because a genuine socialistic movement should be of the working class and intended for its own emancipation from wage slavery. The wage and monetary systems are the chains of that slavery that need to be broken.

Some modified form of wage or some means of exchange might be consistent with a free communistic society, especially among a post-revolutionary society accustomed to some form of labour-rewarding assessment, but the present form of monetary system is one in which money is not a servant (a means of exchange) but a boss in its own right. Wages are a means of denoting the position in society’s pecking order which a person is deemed to hold. It is not even fair as regards the assessment it makes. Such systems must be swept aside.

At present, as indicated above, the Government, or the effective controller which may in some cases be over the Government (the banks, for instance) assess the national wealth. A corresponding number of bank notes are printed, coin is struck, credits are granted to financial houses. According to the degree of efficiency or inefficiency of a current Government (which is the stuff of day-to-day press political sloganeering and need not concern us) the assessment, or budget may be correct or incorrect. According to his or her assessment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be “generous” or “niggardly” in sharing out the national “cake” and apportioning our slices. But in reality salaries and wages are determined by social convention, tradition, Government patronage, economic competition, hereditary power, trade union bargaining, individual enterprise and wildcat strikes. According to their effectiveness, so is the “slice of cake” each receives. Those unable to use any of the pressures are simply left out of the reckoning and must be content with what is given them in order solely to survive. The “cake” is the same whatever the Government does about it.

Is Anarchism Compatible with Capitalism?

It is only possible to conceive of Anarchism in a form in which it is free, communistic, and offering no economic necessity for repression or countering it. Common sense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with a “State” (in the American sense of the word) but it could not dispense with organised Government, or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and others working to amass it for them. The philosophy of “anarcho-capitalism” dreamed up by the “libertarian” New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper. It is a lie that covers an unpleasant reality in its way — such as National Socialism does in another. Patently unbridled capitalism, not even hampered by a reformist State, which has to put some limits on exploitation to prevent violent clashes in society, needs some force at its disposal to maintain class privileges, either from the State itself or from private Armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited State — that is, one in which the State has one function, to protect the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as cheap as possible for the ruling class. The idea also serves another purpose beyond its fulfillment — a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it — just as pacifism sometimes serves as an excuse for bourgeois consciences in avoiding danger without feeling guilty.

Community Control

The history of collective control in a capitalist society is a pretty dismal one. There have been many attempts to bypass the system by forming “communities” which because they are less than the whole, real community, are bound in the end not to prosper. Cooperative societies no less than small businesses rarely withstand the pressure of monopoly capitalism. Collective farms — collective enterprises at which one works at less than the normal wage to for the sake of independence — like craft businesses, never quite get off the ground and it always comes down to the monopoly market. All could flourish if the system were free, but it is not.

Nevertheless, one can note that many communal products are equally available to all, either on payment of a fixed sum, or free. The highways are free — neither State nor capitalism has got round (yet) to making all roads toll roads to enter which one must pay (but they’ve got round to it on main motorways on the Continent). It would probably make no economic difference if the underground railway was also free, bearing in mind the cost of ticket collecting. Water used to be free — even when water rates came in one could draw as much as one liked from the tap. Now there are water meters, as if we were living in the Sahara where water has long been rationed. So far they have not got round to making us pay for air.

Anarchism presupposes that all these arguments based on economics are bunkum. Services which come naturally or are produced by the people should belong to the people.

Need There be a Transitional Society?

A transitional society to Anarchism isn’t necessary. The idea touted by Leninists was that the State would fade away after years of the harshest dictatorship — originally claimed to be only as much as was necessary to save the infant Soviet Republic but which lasted for seventy years until the people got fed up with it. All that faded away was people rash enough to want to go forward to free socialism. The prospect of ‘withering away of the State’ after years of strengthening it is illogical. Leninists justify this by saying the State is only that part of the State apparatus which favours the capitalist class by suppressing the working class. This might fade away (though it did not do so in the years of State Communism). What cannot fade away is the rest of the State apparatus, unless the State is destroyed root and branch.

The fact that a transitional society to Anarchism isn’t necessary does not necessarily mean there will not be one. Who can say? After all, changing attitudes to such matters as racial domination, sexual discrimination, religious orientation, conformity, and so on might be part of a transition to a Free Society already existing. There might be an occupation of the places of work without a conscious revolution, which in itself would be a transitional period.

One could even visualise a curious transitional period in which part of society was evolving to a new system and part was sticking to the old — with workers’ control coexisting with private capitalism in the market the way rigid old-time family styles coexist with free relationships in the same street. But clearly in the long run one or the other system would have to go. Capitalism could not exist if people could be free to choose the way they work without being compelled by conscription or necessity — therefore it would either need to reinforce its authority (possibly by fascist gangs, as during the occupation of the factories in Italy) or go under (which is the choice the Italian capitalists as a while, even though many had democratic viewpoints, were forced to take).

A Free Society

A society cannot be free unless not only are there no governmental restraints, but the essentials of life are free in that sense too.

It is true that if some products were in short supply, however free the society, access to them would have to be rationed by some means. It could be by ‘labour-value’ cards, by ordinary ‘fair rationing’, it might imply retention of a different monetary system (but not money as an ends in itself, in which money has a value beyond that of exchanging goods).

We cannot lay down the economics for a Free Society which by its nature is free to reject or accept anything it fancies. The authoritarian economist can do so (“so long as I, or my party, is in power, we will do this or that”).

An anarchist society is by definition a Free Society, but a Free Society is not necessarily Anarchist. It might fall short in several respects. Some failings might seriously limit its desirability. For instance, a Revolution carried out by men in a male-dominated society, might perpetuate sex discrimination, which would limit freedom and undermine the Revolution by leaving it possible for aggressive attitudes to be fostered. The liberal illusion that repressive forces must be tolerated which will ultimately wipe out all freedom — lest the right to dissent be imperilled — could well destroy the revolution.

A Free Society head to rid itself or repressive institutions and some might long last longer than others. The Church is one instance — yet religious beliefs, which continue under the most repressive and brutal dictatorships, could surely continue under No Government. Only those creeds which have not had their claws cut and demand suppression of other religions or unbelief, forced conversions or marriages, censorship by themselves and obedience to their own laws from those not wishing to do so, have anything to fear from an Anarchist Revolution.

The Employers Do Not Give Work

It is Primitive basic socialist thinking, to which Anarchism subscribes, that work is not something that is given by the employer. The employer may have the legal right to distribute work, but the wealth of a country is due to the workers and to natural resources, not to an employer or a State. They have the chance of preventing wealth being created.

It is the Anarchist case that fluctuations of the money market, inflation, recesssion, unemployment, as well as war, are artificially created and are not natural disasters like flood, famine, earthquake, drought — and as one knows nowadays, even some of these are created by abuse of natural resources.

It may be that in some technological society of the future, run by the State, in a sort of boss utopia, the working class will be displaced as a productive class. We see signs of that even today as large part of the economy are closed down as unprofitable and people uprooted. There is a technology, still in its infancy but making great strides, which will reduce us, as a productive class, to turners of switches and openers of the scientists’ doors; to secretaries and receptionists; to janitors and clerks; to domestic servants of the rich. Anarcho-syndicalsts think such a society must be resisted. They do not worship work as a fetish in itself but fight dehumanisation and alienation. In this they differ from some other Anarchists who think work has no purpose and who become state-dependent by conviction.

Objections to Anarchism

Whenever Anarchists attack present-day society, they touch on the fears and prejudices of average people who know that society is a jungle today and cannot visualise life without the safeguards needed in the jungle. When they hear of Anarchism they bring forward objections which are, in fact, criticisms of the present system they do not otherwise admit but think of as objections to a Free Society of the future.

They fear what is known in the Statist language as a “state of Anarchy” — they think murder, rape, robbery, violent attack would ensue if there were no Government to prevent it. And yet we all know that Government cannot, certainly does not., prevent it. One has only to pick up the papers to learn that it flourishes though Government is strong, and also where Government is weak, and more so perhaps where there are numerous bodies competing as to which is the Government and Government is said to have broken down. “A state of Anarchy” nowhere exists — in the sense there a society where there is no Government and not just a weak or divided Government.

The most a functioning Government can do is not prevention but punishment — when it finds out, sometimes wrongly or not at all — who the culprits are, its own methods of repressive action can cause far more damage than the original crimes — the “cure” is worse than the disease.

“What would you do without a police force?” Society would never tolerate murder, whether it had a police force or not. The institutionalisation of a body to look after crime means that it not only “looks after” crime and nourishes crime, but that the rest of society is absolved from doing so. The reasoning is that a murder next door is the State’s business, not mine! Responsibility for one’s neighbour is reduced in an authoritarian society, in which the State is solely responsible for our behaviour.

“Who will do the dirty work?”. This is a question society, not just the apologist for Anarchism, has to ask itself. There are dirty jobs which are socially unacceptable and poorly paid, so that nobody wants to do them. People have therefore been enslaved to do them, or there is competition in a market economy and the jobs become better paid (and therefore socially acceptable), or there is conscription for such jobs, whether by political direction or the pressures of unemployment. Sometimes the capitalist introduces immigration in the hope of cheap labour, thus putting off the problem for a generation or two. Or it can be that jobs don’t get done and, say, the streets aren’t swept anymore and so we get deluged with water shooting out from cars driven by graduate psychologists and step gingerly past refuse, clutching our theses on sociology.

What the State does in such circumstances seems to depend on political factors. What an Anarchist society would do could only be foretold by a clairvoyant. It is plain what it could not do — use force, since it would lack repressive machinery or the means of economic coercion. The question implies a criticism of prosperity and freedom, which bring problems in their train. Are we to reject prosperity and freedom for that reason?

“If the Anarchists do not seize power, and have superseded other forms of socialism that would, they objectively make way for fascism”. This allegation presupposes the dilution of anarchism with pacifism, for there is always, in any circumstances, one sure way of avoiding dictatorship, whether from the right, left, centre or within one’s own ranks, and that is by personal removal of the dictator. This only becomes a symbolic gesture when the dictator is in power with all the machinery of command-and-obey at the disposal of the head of State.

Anyone will seize power if given the opportunity. Anarchists do not claim to be a privileged elite and cannot truthfully assert they would be better able to resist the temptations of power, or to wield it more successfully, than anyone else.

Leadership

Do Anarchists believe in leadership? They always deny they do, but undoubtedly many Anarchists have emerged as leaders, sometimes even of armies (like Buenaventura Durruti and Nestor Makhno) or of ideas, or of organisations. In any grouping some people do naturally “give a lead”, but this should not mean they are a class apart. What they always reject is responsibility for leadership. That means their supporters become blind followers and the leadership not one of example or originality but of unthinking acceptance.

Musical geniuses, artists, scientists can be of an “elite” without being elitist — there is no reason why excelling in certain spheres should make one better entitled to the world’s goods or more worthy of consideration in matters in which one does not have specialised consideration (the correspondence between Freud and Einstein in which they discuss whether war can be prevented is a classic example of futility — Einstein looking to Freud for a psychological lead in pacifism and Freud explaining it is in the nature of Man. In the end, scientists who were pacifists, or believers in the League of Nations enthusiasts, or — like Einstein — both, invented the atom bomb).

In the same way, people can work in an office without being bureaucrats: a bureaucrat is a person whose power is derived from the office they hold. Holding an office in an organisation can bring supreme power by being at the head of a chain of command-and-obey (as it did in the case of Joseph Stalin). In slang it is a term flung at anyone who happens to be efficient, which is far from being the same thing. v In the same way, no real Anarchist — as distinct from someone pretending to be or remain one — would agree to be part of an institutionalised leadership. Neither would an Anarchist wait for a lead, but give one. That is the mark of being an Anarchist, not a formal declaration of being one. What above all is the curse of leadership is not the curse of leadership, but agreement to being led blindly — not the faults of the shepherd but the meekness of the sheep. What would the crimes of Hitler have amounted to, had he had to carry them out by himself?

Can Public Opinion Itself be Authoritarian?

Yes. Even in a Free Society? Certainly. But this is not an argument against a Free Society, it is a reason why public opinion should not be molded by an outside force. There might well be a society controlled economically by the workers where prejudice against some minorities, or traditional family attitudes, or rules laid down by religions rooted in the past, might still exist. The society would be free in one respect only — economically.

But without any means of codifying prejudices; no repressive machinery against nonconformists; above all, no means of repression by persuasion when the media is controlled from above; public opinion can become superior to its prejudices. The majority is not automatically right. The manipulation of the idea of a majority is part of the Government technique.

Unity

One last objection is made against Anarchism, usually by those about to “come over” — Why disunity in the ranks of those who take up a similar position on many stands? Why cannot we be all one libertarian left? Why any divisions at all?

If we create councils of action — workers’ industrial proto-unions — as we intend to do given the chance and agreement of workers, even if as a first step we form social groups based upon industrial activity or support, obviously we are going to be united to others not only of the libertarian left, or indeed (in the case of workers’ councils) with people of reformist, reactionary, or authoritarian points of view. We mix with them in everyday life anyway. The expression of Anarchist views and attitudes does not make us hermits. Anarchist groups need to keep alive their identity, but only a party machine would make them into walls against meeting others outside.

It is certainly the curse of the present day that pseudo-Anarchists, whether liberal or “lifestylist”, create their own “ghettos” within a “left”, which has become itself a ghetto, in which acceptance of a package deal of ideas is obligatory. This endemic isolation, in the name of youth, sex, race, nationality, alternative culture, or whatever, has nothing to do with Anarchism though it has been wished on it by journalistic propaganda pressure.

The Marxist Criticism of Anarchism

The Marxist criticism of Anarchism is the first with which most people with a serious interest in politics come in contact. There follows from it the Marxist-Leninist critique and the Social-Democratic objections. vMarxist-Leninists, faced with Anarchism, find that by its nature it undermines all the suppositions basic to Marxism. Marxism was held out to be the basic working-class philosophy (a belief which has utterly ruined the working-class movement everywhere). It holds in theory that the industrial proletariat cannot owe its emancipation to anyone but themselves alone, It is hard to go back on that and say that the working class is not yet ready to dispense with authority placed over it by someone outside the class.

Marxism normally tries to refrain from criticising Anarchism as such — unless driven to doing so, when it exposes its own authoritarianism ( “how can the workers run the railways, for instance, without direction — that is to say, without authority?”) and concentrates its attack not on Anarchism, but on Anarchists. This is based on a double standard: Anarchists are held responsible for the thought and actions of all persons, live or dead, calling themselves Anarchists, even only temporarily, or persons referred to as Anarchists by others, even if they disagree, or whose actions could be held to be Anarchistic by non-Anarchists. even on a faulty premise, or are referred to by others as Anarchists. Marxists take responsibility for Marxists holding their particular party card at the time.

Marxism has — whether one agrees with it or not — a valid criticism of the Anarchists in asking how one can (now) dispense with political action — or whether one should throw away so vital a weapon. But this criticism varies between the schools of Marxism, since some have used it to justify complete participation in the whole capitalist power structure, while others talk vaguely only of “using Parliament as a platform”. Lenin recognised the shortcomings of Marxism in this respect and insisted that the anarchist workers could not be criticised for rejecting so Philistine a Marxism that it used political participation for its own sake and expected the capitalist state to let itself be voted out of existence peacefully. He therefore concentrated on another aspect, which Marx pioneered, viz. criticism of particular Anarchists, and this has dominated all Leninist thinking ever since.

Because of the lack of any other criticism of the Anarchists, Leninists — especially Trotskyists — to this day use the personal criticism method. But as Lenin selected only a few well-known personalities who for a few years fell short of the ideas they preached, the latter-day Leninists have to hold that all Anarchists are responsible for everyone who calls himself or herself an Anarchist — or even, such as the Russian Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia, were only called such (if indeed so) by others.

This wrinkle in Leninism has produced another criticism of Anarchism (usually confined to Trots and Maoists); Anarchists are responsible not only for all referred to as Anarchists, but for all workers influenced by Anarchist ideas. The C.N.T. is always quoted here, but significantly its whole history before and after the civil war is never mentioned, solely the period of participation in the Government. For this, the Anarchists must for ever accept responsibility! But the Trots may back the reformist union U.G.T. without accepting any period in its entire history. In all countries (if workers), they presumably join or (if students) accept the reformist trade unions. That is all right. But a revolutionary trade union must for ever be condemned for any one deviation. Moreover, if broken it must never be rebuilt; the reformist union must be rebuilt in preference. This is the logical consequence of all Trot thinking on Spain or other countries where such unions exist, proving their preference for reformist unions’ negative character, which lends itself to a leadership they may capture; as against a decentralised union which a leadership cannot capture.

Petty Bourgeois

Notwithstanding this preference for non-revolutionary unions, and condemnation of Anarchists for unions built from the bottom up, all Marxist-Leninists have a seemingly contradictory criticism of Anarchists, namely “they are petty bourgeois”.

This leads them into another difficulty — how can one reconcile the existence of anarcho-syndicalist unions with “petty-bourgeois” origins — and how does one get over the fact that most Marxist-Leninists of today are professional ladies and gentlemen studying for or belonging to the conservative professions? The answer is usually given that because anarchism is “petty bourgeois” those embracing it “whatever their occupation or social origins” must also be “petty bourgeois”; and because Marxism is working class, its adherents must be working class “at least subjectively”. This is a sociological absurdity, as if “working class” meant an ideological viewpoint. It is also a built-in escape clause.

Yet Marx was not such a fool as his followers. “Petty bourgeois” in his day did not mean a solicitor or an accountant, a factory manager, sociologist ,or anything of that sort (they were “bourgeois” — the term was “petit” or small not “petty” that qualified the adjective — and meant precisely that these were not the same as bourgeoisie). The small burgher was one who had less privileges, economically, than the wealthy but had some privileges by virtue of his craft. Anarchism, said Marx, was the movement of the artisan worker — that is to say, the self-employed craftsman with some leisure to think and talk, not subject to factory hours and discipline, independently-minded and difficult to threaten, not backward like the peasantry. In England, these people tended to become Radicals, perhaps because the State was less oppressive and less obviously unnecessary. In many countries, however, they were much more extreme in their Radicalism and in the Swiss Jura the clockmakers’ Anarchism prospered. It spread to Paris — and the Paris Commune was, above all, a rising of the artisans who had been reduced to penury by Napoleon III and his war. As the capitalist technique spread throughout the world, the artisans were ruined and driven into the factories. It is these individual craftsmen entering industrialisation who became Anarchists, pointed out successive Marxists. They are not conditioned to factory discipline which produces good order, unlike a proletariat prepared to accept a leadership and a party, and to work for ever in the factory provided it comes under State control.

That this observation was true is seen by the crushing of the commune in Paris and in Spain and throughout the world, especially in places like Italy, Bulgaria, in the Jewish pale of settlement in Russia, and so on. It should be the task of an Anarchist union movement to seize the factories, but only in order to break down mass production and get back to craftsmanship. This is what Marx meant by a “petit bourgeois” outlook and the term having changed its meaning totally, the Marxists — like believers accepting Holy Writ –misunderstood him totally.
Vanguards

The reluctance of Marxist-Leninists to accept change is, however, above all seen in the acceptance of Lenin’s conception of the Party. (It is not that of Marx.) Lenin saw that Russia was a huge mass of inertia, with a peasantry that would not budge but took all its suffering with “Asiatic” patience. He looked to the “proletariat” to push it. But the “proletariat” was only a small part of the Russia of his day. Still he recognised it as the one class with an interest in progress — provided, he felt, it was led by shrewd, calculating, ruthless, and highly-educated people (who could only come from the upper classes in the Russia of the time). The party they created should become, as much as possible, the party of the proletariat in which that class could organise and seize power. It had then the right and the duty to wipe out all other parties.

The idiocy of applying this today in, say, a country like Britain is incredible. One has only to look at the parties which offer themselves as the various parties of the proletariat of which, incidentally, there could be only one. Compare them with the people around. The parties’ memberships are far behind in political intelligence and understanding. They are largely composed of shallow and inexperienced enthusiasts who understand far less about class struggle than the average worker.

Having translated the Russian Revolution into a mythology which places great stress on the qualities possessed by its leadership, they then pretend to possess that leadership charisma. But as they don’t have it, there is a total divorce between the working class and the so-called New Left which has, therefore, to cover itself up with long-winded phrases in the hope that this will pass for learning. In the wider “Movement” with the definitions at second hand from Marxist-Leninism, they scratch around to find someone really as backward and dispossessed as the moujik, and fall back on the “Third World” mythology.

The one criticism, applied by Marxist-Leninists, of Anarchism with any serious claim to be considered is, therefore, solely that of whether political action should be considered or not. Whenever it has been undertaken outside the class it has proved of benefit only to leaders from outside the class.

The Social-Democratic Critique of Anarchism

The early Socialists did not understand that there would be necessarily a difference between Anarchism and Socialism. Both were socialist, but whereas the latter hoped to achieve socialism by Parliamentary means, the latter felt that revolutionary means were necessary. As a result many early Anarchist and socialist groups (especially in Britain) were interchangeable in working-class membership. Something might come from political action; something by industrial methods; the Revolution had to be fought as soon as possible; the one therefore was complementary to the other though it was recognised that they might have to follow separate paths. At least. so it was thought.

This, however, changed because the face of socialism changed. It dropped its libertarian ideas for Statism. “Socialism” gradually came to mean State Control of everything and, therefore, so far from being another face of Anarchism, was its direct opposite. From saying originally that “the Anarchists were too impatient”, therefore, the parliamentary Socialists turned to a criticism of the Anarchists leveled at them by people who had no desire to change society at all, whether sooner or later. They picked up what is essentially the conservative criticism of Anarchism which is essentially that the State is the arbiter of all legality and the present economic order is the only established legal order. A Stateless society — or even its advocacy — is thus regarded as criminal in itself! It is not, as a law, but to this day a police constable in court — or a journalist — will for this reason refer to Anarchism as if it were self-evidently criminal.

Most upholders of any parliamentary system deliberately confuse parliamentarism with democracy as an ideal system of equal representation, as if it already existed. Thus ultra-parliamentarism is “undemocratic, suggesting that a few hundred men and a few dozen women selected at random and alone had the right of exercising control over the rest of the country.

Since the Russianisation of “Communism”, turning away from both parliamentarism and democracy, it has suited the Social-Democrat to speak of criticism from the revolutionary side as being necessarily from those wanting dictatorship. The Anarchists, who can hardly be accused of dictatorship — except by politically illiterate journalists who do not understand the differences between parties — must therefore be “criminal” and whole labour movements have been so stigmatised by the Second International. This was picked up by the U.S. Government with its “criminal-syndicalism” legislation which was similar to that in more openly fascist countries.

No more than the Marxist-Leninists, the Social-Democrats (in the sense of orthodox Labourites) are unable to state that their real objection to Anarchism is that fact that it is against power and privilege and so undermines their whole case. They bring up, if challenged, the objection that it is “impossible”. If “impossible”, what have they to fear from it? Why, in countries like Spain and Portugal, where the only chance of resisting tyranny was the Anarchist Movement, did Social-Democrats prefer to help the Communist Party? In Spain, up to the appearance of the Socialist Party when it was politically profitable to switch, the British Labour Party helped the Communist-led factions but did nothing for the Anarchist resistance.

Dictatorship of the proletariat is “possible”, only too much so. When it comes it will sweep the socialists away. But if the Anarchists resist, the Socialists will at least survive to put forward their alternative. They fear only the consequences of that alternative being decisively rejected — for who would choose State Socialism out of the ashcan for nothing if they could have Stateless Socialism instead?

In the capitalist world, the Social Democrat objects to revolutionary methods, the “impatient” and alleged “criminality” of the Anarchists. But in the Communist world, social-democracy was by the same conservative token equally “criminal” (indeed more so) since it presumably postulated connection with enemy powers, as is now proved. The charge of “impatience” could hardly be leveled when there was no way of effecting a change legally and the whole idea of change by parliamentary methods was a dream. Social-democracy, in the sense of Labourism, gives up the fight without hope when tyranny triumphs (unless it can call on foreign intervention, as in occupied war-time Europe). It has nothing to offer. There is no struggle against fascism or Leninism from social-democracy because no constitutional methods offer themselves. In the former Soviet Union and its satellites, they had no ideas on how to change and hoped that nationalists and religious dissidents would put through a bit of liberalism to ease the pressure. We know now how disastrous that policy has been. Yet anarchism offers a revolutionary attack upon the communist countries that is not only rejected by the Social-Democrats; powerful, they unite with other capitalist powers to harass and suppress that attack.

The Liberal-Democratic Objection to Anarchism

Liberal-Democracy, or non-fascist conservatism, is afraid to make direct criticisms of Anarchism because to do so undermines the whole reasoning of Liberal-Democracy. It therefore resorts to falsification: Anarchists are equated with Marxists (and thereby the whole Marxist criticism of anarchism ignored). The most frequent target of attack is to suggest that Anarchism is some form of Marxism plus violence, or some extreme form of Marxism.

The reason Liberal-Democracy has no defence to offer against real Anarchist argument is because Liberal-Democracy is using it as its apologia, in the defence of “freedom”, yet placing circumscribing walls around it. It pretends that parliamentarism is some form of democracy, but though sometimes prepared to admit (under pressure) that parliamentarism is no form of democracy at all, occasionally seeks to find ways of further democratising it. The undoubtedly dictatorial process that a few people, once elected by fair means or foul, have a right to make decisions for a majority, is covered up by a defence of the constitutional rights or even the individual liberty of members of Parliament only. Burke’s dictum that they are representatives, not delegates, is quoted ad nauseam (as if this reactionary politician had bound the British people for ever, though he as himself admitted, did not seek to ask their opinions of the matter once).

Liberal economics are almost as dead as the dodo. What rules is either the monopoly of the big firms, or of the State. Yet laissez-faire economics remain embodied aspirations of the Tory Party which they never implement. They object to the intervention of the State in business, but they never care to carry the spirit of competition too far. There is no logical reason why there should be any restriction on the movement of currency — and this is good Tory policy (though never implemented! Not until the crisis, any crisis, is over!). From this point of view, why should we not be able to deal in gold pieces or U.S. dollars, or Maria Theresa tales, or Francs, or Deutschmarks, or even devalued Deutschmarks? The pound sterling would soon find its own level, and if it were devalued, so much the worse for it. But why stop there? If we can choose any currency we like, free socialism could coexist with capitalism and it would drive capitalism out.

Once free socialism competes with capitalism — as it would if we would choose to ignore the State’s symbolic money and deal in one of our own choosing, which reflected real work values — who would choose to be exploited? Quite clearly no laissez-faire economist who had to combine his role with that of party politician would allow things to go that far.

Liberal-Democracy picks up one of the normal arguments against Anarchism which begin on the right wing: namely, it begins with the objections against socialism — that is Statism — but if there is an anti-Statist socialism that is in fact more liberal than itself, then it is “criminal”. If it is not, then it seeks law to make it so.

This argument is in fact beneath contempt, yet it is one that influences the press, police, and judiciary to a surprising extent. In fact Anarchism as such (as distinct from specific Anarchist organisations) could never be illegal, because no laws can make people love the State. It is only done by false ideals such as describing the State as “country”.

The fact is that Liberal-Democracy seldom voices any arguments against Anarchism as such — other than relying on prejudice — because its objections are purely authoritarian and unmask the innate Statism and authoritarianism of liberalism. Nowadays conservatives like to appropriate the name “liberalism” to describe themselves as if they were more receptive to freedom than socialists. But their liberalism is confined to keeping the State out of interfering in their business affairs. Once anarchism makes it plain that it is possible to have both social justice and to dispense with the Statethey are shown in their true colours. Their arguments against State socialism and Communism may sound “libertarian”, but their arguments against Anarchism reveal that they are essentially authoritarian. That is why they prefer to rely upon innuendo, slanders. and false reporting, which is part of the establishment anti-anarchism, faithfully supported by the media.

The Fascist Objection to Anarchism

The fascist objection to Anarchism is, curiously enough, more honest than that of the Marxist, the liberal or the Social-Democrat. Most of these will say, if pressed, that Anarchism is an ideal, perhaps imperfectly understood, but either impossible of achievement or possible only in the distant future. The fascist, on the contrary, admits its possibility; What is denied is its desirability.

The right-wing authoritarian (which term includes many beyond those naming themselves fascists) worships the very things which are anathema to Anarchists, especially the State. Though the conception of the State is idealised in fascist theory, it is not denied that one could do without it. But the “first duty of the citizen is to defend the State” and it is high treason to oppose it or advocate its abolition.

Sometimes the State is disguised as the “corporate people” or the “nation,” giving a mystical idea of the State beyond the mere bureaucratic apparatus of rule. The forces of militarism and oppression are idealised (after the German emperor who said that universal peace was “only a dream and not even a good dream”). Running throughout right-wing patriotism is a mystical feeling about the “country”, but though Nazis in particular sometimes have recourse to an idealisation of the “people” (this has more of a racial than popular connotation in German), it is really the actual soil that is held sacred, thus taking the State myth to its logical conclusion. For the Anarchist this, of course, is nonsense. The nonsense can be seen in its starkest form with the followers of Franco who killed off so many Spaniards even after the Civil War was ended, while hankering for the barren rock of Gibraltar: especially in General Milan de Astrray, who wanted to kill off “bad Spaniards” and eradicate Catalans and Basques in the name of unitary Spain, thus (as Unamuno pointed out) making Spain as “one-armed and one-eyed, as the General was himself”.

Anarchism is clearly seen by fascists as a direct menace and not a purely philosophical one. It is not merely the direct action of Anarchists but the thing itself which represents the evil. The “democratic” media finally got around to picking up these strands in fascist thinking, ironing them out nicely, and presenting them in the “news” stories. Hitler regarded the Authoritarian State he had built as millennial (the thousand-year state) but he knew it could be dismembered and rejected. His constant theme was the danger of this and while he concentrated (for political reasons) attacks on a totalitarian rival, State Communism (since Russia presented a military menace), his attacks on “cosmopolitanism” have the reiterated theme of anti-Anarchism.

“Cosmopolitanism” and “Statelessness” are the “crimes” Nazism associated with Jews, though since Hitler’s day large numbers of them have reverted to nationalism and a strong state. The theme of “Jewish domination” goes hand in hand with “anarchist destruction of authority, morals, and discipline”, since fascism regards personal freedom as bad in itself and only national freedom permissible. Insofar as one can make any sense of Hitler’s speeches (which are sometimes deceptive since he followed different strands of thought according to the way he could sway an audience), he believed “plunging into Anarchy” of a country (abolition of State restraints) will lead to chaos, which will make it possible for a dictatorship other than the one in the people’s interests to succeed.

Hitler did not confuse State Communism with Anarchism (as Franco did deliberately) for propaganda purposes, to try to eradicate Anarchism from history. He equated Communism with “Jewish domination”, and the case against the Jews (in original Nazi thinking) that they are a racially-pure people who will gain conquest over helots like the Germans.

A “Master Race” must control the Germans to keep the rival State out. In a condition of freedom the German “helots” would revert to Anarchy, just as the racially “inferior” Celts of France threw out the Norman Nordic overlords (the Houston Chamberlain version of the French Revolution). Later, of course, when Nazism became a mass Party it was expedient to amend this to saying the Germans were the Master Race, but this was not the original Nazi philosophy, nor was it privately accepted by the Nazi leaders (“the German people were not worthy of me”). But they could hardly tell mass meetings that they were all “helots”. At least not until their power was complete. This idea that a whole people (whichever it was) can be born “helots” could not be better expressed as the contrary opposite of Anarchism, since in this case it would indeed be impossible.

This Nazi propaganda is echoed by the media today; “plunging the country into Anarchy would be followed by a Communist or extreme right-wing dictatorship” is current newspaper jargon.

To sum up the fascist objection to Anarchism: It is not denied the abolition of the State can come about, but if so, given economic, social, and political freedom, the “helots” — who are “naturally inclined” to accept subjection from superior races — will seek for masters. They will have a nostalgia for “strong rule”.

In Nazi thinking, strong rule can only come from (in theory) racially-pure members of the “Master Race” (something a little more than a class and less than a people), which can be constructive masters (i.e., the “Aryans”), or a race which has had no contact with the “soil” and will be thus destructive.

In other types of fascist thinking, given freedom, the people will throw off all patriotic and nationalistic allegiances and so the “country” will cease to be great. This is the basis of Mussolini’s fascism, and, of course, it is perfectly true, bearing in mind that “the country” is his synonym for the State and his only conception of greatness is militaristic. The frankest of all is the Spanish type of fascism which sought to impose class domination of the most brutal kind and make it plain that its opposition to Anarchism was simply in order to keep the working class down. If necessary, the working class may be, and was, decimated in order to crush Anarchism.

It is true of all political philosophies and blatant with the fascist one, that its relationship to Anarchism throws as clear light upon itself!

The Average Person’s Objection to Anarchism

Generally speaking, the ordinary people pick up their objection to Anarchism from the press, which in turn is influenced by what the establishment wants. For many years there was a press conspiracy of silence against Anarchism, followed in the 1960 by a ruling on transcribing Anarchism and Marxism, or Anarchism and nationalism, so that the one must be referred to the other, in order to confuse. This was bourn out in many exposures in Black Flag showing where avowed Marxists were in the turbulent Sixties described in the press as “Anarchists” while avowed Anarchists were described as “Marxists” or “nationalists”. On some occasions nationalists were called “Anarchists,” but usually when the word “Anarchist” was being used as if to describe oneself as an Anarchist, it was to make a confession of guilt. This, as we have seen, is picked up from the Liberal-Democratic attitude to Anarchism. But it is flavoured strongly with the fascist attitude, too. Because of it, the phrase “self-confessed Anarchist” came to be used by the Press to describe a person who is an Anarchist as opposed to someone who they have merely labeled Anarchist in order to confuse.

This has altered somewhat with the commercial exploitation of Anarchism by commercial exploitation of music and academic exploitation of philosophy, giving rise to a middle-class liberal version of an Anarchist as a liberal-minded philosopher, a harmless eccentric, a drop out, or a person wearing fashionably unfashionable clothes.

As opposed to this increasingly popular misconception, the average person takes the fascist view of anarchism — as picked up in its entirety by police officers and others — as genuine, but tempered with the fact that they do not take it quite seriously. Sometimes they confuse the word “revolutionary”, and assume all who protest are thereby Anarchist. This ignorance, however, is more often displayed by journalists than it is by the general public.

When it comes down to an objection to Anarchism as it is, as distinct from objections to a mythological Anarchism as imagined or caricatured by the authoritarian Parties or establishment, or practised by the alternative establishment, there are not many serious objections from the general public. They may not think it practical of realisation if presented in a positive way to them, but they usually do so if presented in a negative way — i.e. describing the tyranny of the State. The fact that we could dispense with authoritarian parties, the worthlessness of politicians, and so on is generally agreed. The sole main objection is perhaps the feeling that they want to make the best out of life as it is: and they do not feel strong enough to challenge the State or to face the struggle involved in bringing about a Free Society, or put up with the many vicissitudes (major and minor) that make up the life of a militant or someone reasonably committed to an ideal. The temptations are greatto conform and to accept the bribes which the capitalist class can now hold out. Only when the State wants its last ounce of blood do people wake up to the need for resistance, but then it is too late and also, of course, the State then takes on the pretence of being “the country”, in order to be loved instead of hated or disliked.

The Reduction of Anarchism to Marginalisation

By crafty methods, not used against other political theories, it is endeavoured by Statist propaganda to marginalise Anarchism to nothing. It is confused by journalists, professors, and subsidised “researchers” to show that Anarchists are identical to dropouts, drug-takers, nationalist assassins, New-Age travelers, political dissidents, militant trade unionists, young rebels, middle-class theorists, dreamers, plotters, comedians, frustrated reformers, extreme pacifists, murderers, schoolboy rebels, and criminals. Some Anarchists, one supposes, could be any but hardly all of these — as could members of all political persuasions — but none could be descriptive of the cause. By misuse of the word “Anarchist”, or by added “alleged” or “self-confessed” Anarchist; or by conjoining the word with an obvious contradiction, Anarchism can be marginalised and, by implication, Statist theories made to seem the norm.

La Historia Me Absolvera

History Will Absolve Me
By Fidel Castro
October 16, 1953

HONORABLE JUDGES:

Never has a lawyer had to practice his profession under such difficult conditions; never has such a number of overwhelming irregularities been committed against an accused man. In this case, counsel and defendant are one and the same. As attorney he has not even been able to take a look at the indictment. As accused, for the past seventy-six days he has been locked away in solitary confinement, held totally and absolutely incommunicado, in violation of every human and legal right.

He who speaks to you hates vanity with all his being, nor are his temperament or frame of mind inclined towards courtroom poses or sensationalism of any kind. If I have had to assume my own defense before this Court it is for two reasons. First: because I have been denied legal aid almost entirely, and second: only one who has been so deeply wounded, who has seen his country so forsaken and its justice trampled so, can speak at a moment like this with words that spring from the blood of his heart and the truth of his very gut.

There was no lack of generous comrades who wished to defend me, and the Havana Bar Association appointed a courageous and competent jurist, Dr. Jorge Pagliery, Dean of the Bar in this city, to represent me in this case. However, he was not permitted to carry out his task. As often as he tried to see me, the prison gates were closed before him. Only after a month and a half, and through the intervention of the Court, was he finally granted a ten minute interview with me in the presence of a sergeant from the Military Intelligence Agency (SIM). One supposes that a lawyer has a right to speak with his defendant in private, and this right is respected throughout the world, except in the case of a Cuban prisoner of war in the hands of an implacable tyranny that abides by no code of law, be it legal or humane. Neither Dr. Pagliery nor I were willing to tolerate such dirty spying upon our means of defense for the oral trial. Did they want to know, perhaps, beforehand, the methods we would use in order to reduce to dust the incredible fabric of lies they had woven around the Moncada Barracks events? How were we going to expose the terrible truth they would go to such great lengths to conceal? It was then that we decided that, taking advantage of my professional rights as a lawyer, I would assume my own defense.

This decision, overheard by the sergeant and reported by him to his superior, provoked a real panic. It looked like some mocking little imp was telling them that I was going to ruin all their plans. You know very well, Honorable Judges, how much pressure has been brought to bear on me in order to strip me as well of this right that is ratified by long Cuban tradition. The Court could not give in to such machination, for that would have left the accused in a state of total indefensiveness. The accused, who is now exercising this right to plead his own case, will under no circumstances refrain from saying what he must say. I consider it essential that I explain, at the onset, the reason for the terrible isolation in which I have been kept; what was the purpose of keeping me silent; what was behind the plots to kill me, plots which the Court is familiar with; what grave events are being hidden from the people; and the truth behind all the strange things which have taken place during this trial. I propose to do all this with utmost clarity.

You have publicly called this case the most significant in the history of the Republic. If you sincerely believed this, you should not have allowed your authority to be stained and degraded. The first court session was September 21st. Among one hundred machine guns and bayonets, scandalously invading the hall of justice, more than a hundred people were seated in the prisoner’s dock. The great majority had nothing to do with what had happened. They had been under preventive arrest for many days, suffering all kinds of insults and abuses in the chambers of the repressive units. But the rest of the accused, the minority, were brave and determined, ready to proudly confirm their part in the battle for freedom, ready to offer an example of unprecedented self-sacrifice and to wrench from the jail’s claws those who in deliberate bad faith had been included in the trial. Those who had met in combat confronted one another again. Once again, with the cause of justice on our side, we would wage the terrible battle of truth against infamy! Surely the regime was not prepared for the moral catastrophe in store for it!

How to maintain all its false accusations? How to keep secret what had really happened, when so many young men were willing to risk everything – prison, torture and death, if necessary – in order that the truth be told before this Court?

I was called as a witness at that first session. For two hours I was questioned by the Prosecutor as well as by twenty defense attorneys. I was able to prove with exact facts and figures the sums of money that had been spent, the way this money was collected and the arms we had been able to round up. I had nothing to hide, for the truth was: all this was accomplished through sacrifices without precedent in the history of our Republic. I spoke of the goals that inspired us in our struggle and of the humane and generous treatment that we had at all times accorded our adversaries. If I accomplished my purpose of demonstrating that those who were falsely implicated in this trial were neither directly nor indirectly involved, I owe it to the complete support and backing of my heroic comrades. For, as I said, the consequences they might be forced to suffer at no time caused them to repent of their condition as revolutionaries and patriots, I was never once allowed to speak with these comrades of mine during the time we were in prison, and yet we planned to do exactly the same. The fact is, when men carry the same ideals in their hearts, nothing can isolate them – neither prison walls nor the sod of cemeteries. For a single memory, a single spirit, a single idea, a single conscience, a single dignity will sustain them all.

From that moment on, the structure of lies the regime had erected about the events at Moncada Barracks began to collapse like a house of cards. As a result, the Prosecutor realized that keeping all those persons named as instigators in prison was completely absurd, and he requested their provisional release.

At the close of my testimony in that first session, I asked the Court to allow me to leave the dock and sit among the counsel for the defense. This permission was granted. At that point what I consider my most important mission in this trial began: to totally discredit the cowardly, miserable and treacherous lies which the regime had hurled against our fighters; to reveal with irrefutable evidence the horrible, repulsive crimes they had practiced on the prisoners; and to show the nation and the world the infinite misfortune of the Cuban people who are suffering the cruelest, the most inhuman oppression of their history.

The second session convened on Tuesday, September 22nd. By that time only ten witnesses had testified, and they had already cleared up the murders in the Manzanillo area, specifically establishing and placing on record the direct responsibility of the captain commanding that post. There were three hundred more witnesses to testify. What would happen if, with a staggering mass of facts and evidence, I should proceed to cross-examine the very Army men who were directly responsible for those crimes? Could the regime permit me to go ahead before the large audience attending the trial? Before journalists and jurists from all over the island? And before the party leaders of the opposition, who they had stupidly seated right in the prisoner’s dock where they could hear so well all that might be brought out here? They would rather have blown up the court house, with all its judges, than allow that!

And so they devised a plan by which they could eliminate me from the trial and they proceeded to do just that, manu militari. On Friday night, September 25th, on the eve of the third session of the trial, two prison doctors visited me in my cell. They were visibly embarrassed. ‘We have come to examine you,’ they said. I asked them, ‘Who is so worried about my health?’ Actually, from the moment I saw them I realized what they had come for. They could not have treated me with greater respect, and they explained their predicament to me. That afternoon Colonel Chaviano had appeared at the prison and told them I ‘was doing the Government terrible damage with this trial.’ He had told them they must sign a certificate declaring that I was ill and was, therefore, unable to appear in court. The doctors told me that for their part they were prepared to resign from their posts and risk persecution. They put the matter in my hands, for me to decide. I found it hard to ask those men to unhesitatingly destroy themselves. But neither could I, under any circumstances, consent that those orders be carried out. Leaving the matter to their own consciences, I told them only: ‘You must know your duty; I certainly know mine.’

After leaving the cell they signed the certificate. I know they did so believing in good faith that this was the only way they could save my life, which they considered to be in grave danger. I was not obliged to keep our conversation secret, for I am bound only by the truth. Telling the truth in this instance may jeopardize those good doctors in their material interests, but I am removing all doubt about their honor, which is worth much more. That same night, I wrote the Court a letter denouncing the plot; requesting that two Court physicians be sent to certify my excellent state of health, and to inform you that if to save my life I must take part in such deception, I would a thousand times prefer to lose it. To show my determination to fight alone against this whole degenerate frame-up, I added to my own words one of the Master’s lines: ‘A just cause even from the depths of a cave can do more than an army.’ As the Court knows, this was the letter Dr. Melba Hernández submitted at the third session of the trial on September 26th. I managed to get it to her in spite of the heavy guard I was under. That letter, of course, provoked immediate reprisals. Dr. Hernández was subjected to solitary confinement, and I – since I was already incommunicado – was sent to the most inaccessible reaches of the prison. From that moment on, all the accused were thoroughly searched from head to foot before they were brought into the courtroom.

Two Court physicians certified on September 27th that I was, in fact, in perfect health. Yet, in spite of the repeated orders from the Court, I was never again brought to the hearings. What’s more, anonymous persons daily circulated hundreds of apocryphal pamphlets which announced my rescue from jail. This stupid alibi was invented so they could physically eliminate me and pretend I had tried to escape. Since the scheme failed as a result of timely exposure by ever alert friends, and after the first affidavit was shown to be false, the regime could only keep me away from the trial by open and shameless contempt of Court.

This was an incredible situation, Honorable Judges: Here was a regime literally afraid to bring an accused man to Court; a regime of blood and terror that shrank in fear of the moral conviction of a defenseless man – unarmed, slandered and isolated. And so, after depriving me of everything else, they finally deprived me even of the trial in which I was the main accused. Remember that this was during a period in which individual rights were suspended and the Public Order Act as well as censorship of radio and press were in full force. What unbelievable crimes this regime must have committed to so fear the voice of one accused man!

I must dwell upon the insolence and disrespect which the Army leaders have at all times shown towards you. As often as this Court has ordered an end to the inhuman isolation in which I was held; as often as it has ordered my most elementary rights to be respected; as often as it has demanded that I be brought before it, this Court has never been obeyed! Worse yet: in the very presence of the Court, during the first and second hearings, a praetorian guard was stationed beside me to totally prevent me from speaking to anyone, even among the brief recesses. In other words, not only in prison, but also in the courtroom and in your presence, they ignored your decrees. I had intended to mention this matter in the following session, as a question of elementary respect for the Court, but – I was never brought back. And if, in exchange for so much disrespect, they bring us before you to be jailed in the name of a legality which they and they alone have been violating since March 10th, sad indeed is the role they would force on you. The Latin maxim Cedant arma togae has certainly not been fulfilled on a single occasion during this trial. I beg you to keep that circumstance well in mind.

What is more, these devices were in any case quite useless; my brave comrades, with unprecedented patriotism, did their duty to the utmost.

‘Yes, we set out to fight for Cuba’s freedom and we are not ashamed of having done so,’ they declared, one by one, on the witness stand. Then, addressing the Court with impressive courage, they denounced the hideous crimes committed upon the bodies of our brothers. Although absent from Court, I was able, in my prison cell, to follow the trial in all its details. And I have the convicts at Boniato Prison to thank for this. In spite of all threats, these men found ingenious means of getting newspaper clippings and all kinds of information to me. In this way they avenged the abuses and immoralities perpetrated against them both by Taboada, the warden, and the supervisor, Lieutenant Rozabal, who drove them from sun up to sun down building private mansions and starved them by embezzling the prison food budget.

As the trial went on, the roles were reversed: those who came to accuse found themselves accused, and the accused became the accusers! It was not the revolutionaries who were judged there; judged once and forever was a man named Batista – monstruum horrendum! – and it matters little that these valiant and worthy young men have been condemned, if tomorrow the people will condemn the Dictator and his henchmen! Our men were consigned to the Isle of Pines Prison, in whose circular galleries Castells’ ghost still lingers and where the cries of countless victims still echo; there our young men have been sent to expiate their love of liberty, in bitter confinement, banished from society, torn from their homes and exiled from their country. Is it not clear to you, as I have said before, that in such circumstances it is difficult and disagreeable for this lawyer to fulfill his duty?

As a result of so many turbid and illegal machinations, due to the will of those who govern and the weakness of those who judge, I find myself here in this little room at the Civilian Hospital, where I have been brought to be tried in secret, so that I may not be heard and my voice may be stifled, and so that no one may learn of the things I am going to say. Why, then, do we need that imposing Palace of Justice which the Honorable Judges would without doubt find much more comfortable? I must warn you: it is unwise to administer justice from a hospital room, surrounded by sentinels with fixed bayonets; the citizens might suppose that our justice is sick – and that it is captive.

Let me remind you, your laws of procedure provide that trials shall be ‘public hearings;’ however, the people have been barred altogether from this session of Court. The only civilians admitted here have been two attorneys and six reporters, in whose newspapers the censorship of the press will prevent printing a word I say. I see, as my sole audience in this chamber and in the corridors, nearly a hundred soldiers and officers. I am grateful for the polite and serious attention they give me. I only wish I could have the whole Army before me! I know, one day, this Army will seethe with rage to wash away the terrible, the shameful bloodstains splattered across the military uniform by the present ruthless clique in its lust for power. On that day, oh what a fall awaits those mounted in arrogance on their noble steeds! – provided that the people have not dismounted them long before that!

Finally, I should like to add that no treatise on penal law was allowed me in my cell. I have at my disposal only this tiny code of law lent to me by my learned counsel, Dr. Baudillo Castellanos, the courageous defender of my comrades. In the same way they prevented me from receiving the books of Martí; it seems the prison censorship considered them too subversive. Or is it because I said Martí was the inspirer of the 26th of July? Reference books on any other subject were also denied me during this trial. But it makes no difference! I carry the teachings of the Master in my heart, and in my mind the noble ideas of all men who have defended people’s freedom everywhere!

I am going to make only one request of this court; I trust it will be granted as a compensation for the many abuses and outrages the accused has had to tolerate without protection of the law. I ask that my right to express myself be respected without restraint. Otherwise, even the merest semblance of justice cannot be maintained, and the final episode of this trial would be, more than all the others, one of ignominy and cowardice.

I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed. I had expected that the Honorable Prosecutor would come forward with a grave accusation. I thought he would be ready to justify to the limit his contention, and his reasons why I should be condemned in the name of Law and Justice – what law and what justice? – to 26 years in prison. But no. He has limited himself to reading Article 148 of the Social Defense Code. On the basis of this, plus aggravating circumstances, he requests that I be imprisoned for the lengthy term of 26 years! Two minutes seems a very short time in which to demand and justify that a man be put behind bars for more than a quarter of a century. Can it be that the Honorable Prosecutor is, perhaps, annoyed with the Court? Because as I see it, his laconic attitude in this case clashes with the solemnity with which the Honorable Judges declared, rather proudly, that this was a trial of the greatest importance! I have heard prosecutors speak ten times longer in a simple narcotics case asking for a sentence of just six months. The Honorable Prosecutor has supplied not a word in support of his petition. I am a just man. I realize that for a prosecuting attorney under oath of loyalty to the Constitution of the Republic, it is difficult to come here in the name of an unconstitutional, statutory, de facto government, lacking any legal much less moral basis, to ask that a young Cuban, a lawyer like himself – perhaps as honorable as he, be sent to jail for 26 years. But the Honorable Prosecutor is a gifted man and I have seen much less talented persons write lengthy diatribes in defense of this regime. How then can I suppose that he lacks reason with which to defend it, at least for fifteen minutes, however contemptible that might be to any decent person? It is clear that there is a great conspiracy behind all this.

Honorable Judges: Why such interest in silencing me? Why is every type of argument foregone in order to avoid presenting any target whatsoever against which I might direct my own brief? Is it that they lack any legal, moral or political basis on which to put forth a serious formulation of the question? Are they that afraid of the truth? Do they hope that I, too, will speak for only two minutes and that I will not touch upon the points which have caused certain people sleepless nights since July 26th? Since the prosecutor’s petition was restricted to the mere reading of five lines of an article of the Social Defense Code, might they suppose that I too would limit myself to those same lines and circle round them like some slave turning a millstone? I shall by no means accept such a gag, for in this trial there is much more than the freedom of a single individual at stake. Fundamental matters of principle are being debated here, the right of men to be free is on trial, the very foundations of our existence as a civilized and democratic nation are in the balance. When this trial is over, I do not want to have to reproach myself for any principle left undefended, for any truth left unsaid, for any crime not denounced.

The Honorable Prosecutor’s famous little article hardly deserves a minute of my time. I shall limit myself for the moment to a brief legal skirmish against it, because I want to clear the field for an assault against all the endless lies and deceits, the hypocrisy, conventionalism and moral cowardice that have set the stage for the crude comedy which since the 10th of March – and even before then – has been called Justice in Cuba.

It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that an imputed offense must correspond exactly to the type of crime described by law. If no law applies exactly to the point in question, then there is no offense.

The article in question reads textually: ‘A penalty of imprisonment of from three to ten years shall be imposed upon the perpetrator of any act aimed at bringing about an armed uprising against the Constitutional Powers of the State. The penalty shall be imprisonment for from five to twenty years, in the event that insurrection actually be carried into effect.’

In what country is the Honorable Prosecutor living? Who has told him that we have sought to bring about an uprising against the Constitutional Powers of the State? Two things are self-evident. First of all, the dictatorship that oppresses the nation is not a constitutional power, but an unconstitutional one: it was established against the Constitution, over the head of the Constitution, violating the legitimate Constitution of the Republic. The legitimate Constitution is that which emanates directly from a sovereign people. I shall demonstrate this point fully later on, notwithstanding all the subterfuges contrived by cowards and traitors to justify the unjustifiable. Secondly, the article refers to Powers, in the plural, as in the case of a republic governed by a Legislative Power, an Executive Power, and a Judicial Power which balance and counterbalance one another. We have fomented a rebellion against one single power, an illegal one, which has usurped and merged into a single whole both the Legislative and Executive Powers of the nation, and so has destroyed the entire system that was specifically safeguarded by the Code now under our analysis. As to the independence of the Judiciary after the 10th of March, I shall not allude to that for I am in no mood for joking … No matter how Article 148 may be stretched, shrunk or amended, not a single comma applies to the events of July 26th. Let us leave this statute alone and await the opportunity to apply it to those who really did foment an uprising against the Constitutional Powers of the State. Later I shall come back to the Code to refresh the Honorable Prosecutor’s memory about certain circumstances he has unfortunately overlooked.

I warn you, I am just beginning! If there is in your hearts a vestige of love for your country, love for humanity, love for justice, listen carefully. I know that I will be silenced for many years; I know that the regime will try to suppress the truth by all possible means; I know that there will be a conspiracy to bury me in oblivion. But my voice will not be stifled – it will rise from my breast even when I feel most alone, and my heart will give it all the fire that callous cowards deny it.

From a shack in the mountains on Monday, July 27th, I listened to the dictator’s voice on the air while there were still 18 of our men in arms against the government. Those who have never experienced similar moments will never know that kind of bitterness and indignation. While the long-cherished hopes of freeing our people lay in ruins about us we heard those crushed hopes gloated over by a tyrant more vicious, more arrogant than ever. The endless stream of lies and slanders, poured forth in his crude, odious, repulsive language, may only be compared to the endless stream of clean young blood which had flowed since the previous night – with his knowledge, consent, complicity and approval – being spilled by the most inhuman gang of assassins it is possible to imagine. To have believed him for a single moment would have sufficed to fill a man of conscience with remorse and shame for the rest of his life. At that time I could not even hope to brand his miserable forehead with the mark of truth which condemns him for the rest of his days and for all time to come. Already a circle of more than a thousand men, armed with weapons more powerful than ours and with peremptory orders to bring in our bodies, was closing in around us. Now that the truth is coming out, now that speaking before you I am carrying out the mission I set for myself, I may die peacefully and content. So I shall not mince my words about those savage murderers.

I must pause to consider the facts for a moment. The government itself said the attack showed such precision and perfection that it must have been planned by military strategists. Nothing could have been farther from the truth! The plan was drawn up by a group of young men, none of whom had any military experience at all. I will reveal their names, omitting two who are neither dead nor in prison: Abel Santamaría, José Luis Tasende, Renato Guitart Rosell, Pedro Miret, Jesús Montané and myself. Half of them are dead, and in tribute to their memory I can say that although they were not military experts they had enough patriotism to have given, had we not been at such a great disadvantage, a good beating to that entire lot of generals together, those generals of the 10th of March who are neither soldiers nor patriots. Much more difficult than the planning of the attack was our organizing, training, mobilizing and arming men under this repressive regime with its millions of dollars spent on espionage, bribery and information services. Nevertheless, all this was carried out by those men and many others like them with incredible seriousness, discretion and discipline. Still more praiseworthy is the fact that they gave this task everything they had; ultimately, their very lives.

The final mobilization of men who came to this province from the most remote towns of the entire island was accomplished with admirable precision and in absolute secrecy. It is equally true that the attack was carried out with magnificent coordination. It began simultaneously at 5:15 a.m. in both Bayamo and Santiago de Cuba; and one by one, with an exactitude of minutes and seconds prepared in advance, the buildings surrounding the barracks fell to our forces. Nevertheless, in the interest of truth and even though it may detract from our merit, I am also going to reveal for the first time a fact that was fatal: due to a most unfortunate error, half of our forces, and the better armed half at that, went astray at the entrance to the city and were not on hand to help us at the decisive moment. Abel Santamaría, with 21 men, had occupied the Civilian Hospital; with him went a doctor and two of our women comrades to attend to the wounded. Raúl Castro, with ten men, occupied the Palace of Justice, and it was my responsibility to attack the barracks with the rest, 95 men. Preceded by an advance group of eight who had forced Gate Three, I arrived with the first group of 45 men. It was precisely here that the battle began, when my car ran into an outside patrol armed with machine guns. The reserve group which had almost all the heavy weapons (the light arms were with the advance group), turned up the wrong street and lost its way in an unfamiliar city. I must clarify the fact that I do not for a moment doubt the courage of those men; they experienced great anguish and desperation when they realized they were lost. Because of the type of action it was and because the contending forces were wearing identically colored uniforms, it was not easy for these men to re-establish contact with us. Many of them, captured later on, met death with true heroism.

Everyone had instructions, first of all, to be humane in the struggle. Never was a group of armed men more generous to the adversary. From the beginning we took numerous prisoners – nearly twenty – and there was one moment when three of our men – Ramiro Valdés, José Suárez and Jesús Montané – managed to enter a barrack and hold nearly fifty soldiers prisoners for a short time. Those soldiers testified before the Court, and without exception they all acknowledged that we treated them with absolute respect, that we didn’t even subject them to one scoffing remark. In line with this, I want to give my heartfelt thanks to the Prosecutor for one thing in the trial of my comrades: when he made his report he was fair enough to acknowledge as an incontestable fact that we maintained a high spirit of chivalry throughout the struggle.

Discipline among the soldiers was very poor. They finally defeated us because of their superior numbers – fifteen to one – and because of the protection afforded them by the defenses of the fortress. Our men were much better marksmen, as our enemies themselves conceded. There was a high degree of courage on both sides.

In analyzing the reasons for our tactical failure, apart from the regrettable error already mentioned, I believe we made a mistake by dividing the commando unit we had so carefully trained. Of our best trained men and boldest leaders, there were 27 in Bayamo, 21 at the Civilian Hospital and 10 at the Palace of Justice. If our forces had been distributed differently the outcome of the battle might have been different. The clash with the patrol (purely accidental, since the unit might have been at that point twenty seconds earlier or twenty seconds later) alerted the camp, and gave it time to mobilize. Otherwise it would have fallen into our hands without a shot fired, since we already controlled the guard post. On the other hand, except for the .22 caliber rifles, for which there were plenty of bullets, our side was very short of ammunition. Had we had hand grenades, the Army would not have been able to resist us for fifteen minutes.

When I became convinced that all efforts to take the barracks were now useless, I began to withdraw our men in groups of eight and ten. Our retreat was covered by six expert marksmen under the command of Pedro Miret and Fidel Labrador; heroically they held off the Army’s advance. Our losses in the battle had been insignificant; 95% of our casualties came from the Army’s inhumanity after the struggle. The group at the Civilian Hospital only had one casualty; the rest of that group was trapped when the troops blocked the only exit; but our youths did not lay down their arms until their very last bullet was gone. With them was Abel Santamaría, the most generous, beloved and intrepid of our young men, whose glorious resistance immortalizes him in Cuban history. We shall see the fate they met and how Batista sought to punish the heroism of our youth.

We planned to continue the struggle in the mountains in case the attack on the regiment failed. In Siboney I was able to gather a third of our forces; but many of these men were now discouraged. About twenty of them decided to surrender; later we shall see what became of them. The rest, 18 men, with what arms and ammunition were left, followed me into the mountains. The terrain was completely unknown to us. For a week we held the heights of the Gran Piedra range and the Army occupied the foothills. We could not come down; they didn’t risk coming up. It was not force of arms, but hunger and thirst that ultimately overcame our resistance. I had to divide the men into smaller groups. Some of them managed to slip through the Army lines; others were surrendered by Monsignor Pérez Serantes. Finally only two comrades remained with me – José Suárez and Oscar Alcalde. While the three of us were totally exhausted, a force led by Lieutenant Sarría surprised us in our sleep at dawn. This was Saturday, August 1st. By that time the slaughter of prisoners had ceased as a result of the people’s protest. This officer, a man of honor, saved us from being murdered on the spot with our hands tied behind us.

I need not deny here the stupid statements by Ugalde Carrillo and company, who tried to stain my name in an effort to mask their own cowardice, incompetence, and criminality. The facts are clear enough.

My purpose is not to bore the court with epic narratives. All that I have said is essential for a more precise understanding of what is yet to come.

Let me mention two important facts that facilitate an objective judgement of our attitude. First: we could have taken over the regiment simply by seizing all the high ranking officers in their homes. This possibility was rejected for the very humane reason that we wished to avoid scenes of tragedy and struggle in the presence of their families. Second: we decided not to take any radio station over until the Army camp was in our power. This attitude, unusually magnanimous and considerate, spared the citizens a great deal of bloodshed. With only ten men I could have seized a radio station and called the people to revolt. There is no questioning the people’s will to fight. I had a recording of Eduardo Chibás’ last message over the CMQ radio network, and patriotic poems and battle hymns capable of moving the least sensitive, especially with the sounds of live battle in their ears. But I did not want to use them although our situation was desperate.

The regime has emphatically repeated that our Movement did not have popular support. I have never heard an assertion so naive, and at the same time so full of bad faith. The regime seeks to show submission and cowardice on the part of the people. They all but claim that the people support the dictatorship; they do not know how offensive this is to the brave Orientales. Santiago thought our attack was only a local disturbance between two factions of soldiers; not until many hours later did they realize what had really happened. Who can doubt the valor, civic pride and limitless courage of the rebel and patriotic people of Santiago de Cuba? If Moncada had fallen into our hands, even the women of Santiago de Cuba would have risen in arms. Many were the rifles loaded for our fighters by the nurses at the Civilian Hospital. They fought alongside us. That is something we will never forget.

It was never our intention to engage the soldiers of the regiment in combat. We wanted to seize control of them and their weapons in a surprise attack, arouse the people and call the soldiers to abandon the odious flag of the tyranny and to embrace the banner of freedom; to defend the supreme interests of the nation and not the petty interests of a small clique; to turn their guns around and fire on the people’s enemies and not on the people, among whom are their own sons and fathers; to unite with the people as the brothers that they are instead of opposing the people as the enemies the government tries to make of them; to march behind the only beautiful ideal worthy of sacrificing one’s life – the greatness and happiness of one’s country. To those who doubt that many soldiers would have followed us, I ask: What Cuban does not cherish glory? What heart is not set aflame by the promise of freedom?

The Navy did not fight against us, and it would undoubtedly have come over to our side later on. It is well known that that branch of the Armed Forces is the least dominated by the Dictatorship and that there is a very intense civic conscience among its members. But, as to the rest of the national armed forces, would they have fought against a people in revolt? I declare that they would not! A soldier is made of flesh and blood; he thinks, observes, feels. He is susceptible to the opinions, beliefs, sympathies and antipathies of the people. If you ask his opinion, he may tell you he cannot express it; but that does not mean he has no opinion. He is affected by exactly the same problems that affect other citizens – subsistence, rent, the education of his children, their future, etc. Everything of this kind is an inevitable point of contact between him and the people and everything of this kind relates him to the present and future situation of the society in which he lives. It is foolish to imagine that the salary a soldier receives from the State – a modest enough salary at that – should resolve the vital problems imposed on him by his needs, duties and feelings as a member of his community.

This brief explanation has been necessary because it is basic to a consideration to which few people, until now, have paid any attention – soldiers have a deep respect for the feelings of the majority of the people! During the Machado regime, in the same proportion as popular antipathy increased, the loyalty of the Army visibly decreased. This was so true that a group of women almost succeeded in subverting Camp Columbia. But this is proven even more clearly by a recent development. While Grau San Martín’s regime was able to preserve its maximum popularity among the people, unscrupulous ex-officers and power-hungry civilians attempted innumerable conspiracies in the Army, although none of them found a following in the rank and file.

The March 10th coup took place at the moment when the civil government’s prestige had dwindled to its lowest ebb, a circumstance of which Batista and his clique took advantage. Why did they not strike their blow after the first of June? Simply because, had they waited for the majority of the nation to express its will at the polls, the troops would not have responded to the conspiracy!

Consequently, a second assertion can be made: the Army has never revolted against a regime with a popular majority behind it. These are historic truths, and if Batista insists on remaining in power at all costs against the will of the majority of Cubans, his end will be more tragic than that of Gerardo Machado.

I have a right to express an opinion about the Armed Forces because I defended them when everyone else was silent. And I did this neither as a conspirator, nor from any kind of personal interest – for we then enjoyed full constitutional prerogatives. I was prompted only by humane instincts and civic duty. In those days, the newspaper Alerta was one of the most widely read because of its position on national political matters. In its pages I campaigned against the forced labor to which the soldiers were subjected on the private estates of high civil personages and military officers. On March 3rd, 1952 I supplied the Courts with data, photographs, films and other proof denouncing this state of affairs. I also pointed out in those articles that it was elementary decency to increase army salaries. I should like to know who else raised his voice on that occasion to protest against all this injustice done to the soldiers. Certainly not Batista and company, living well-protected on their luxurious estates, surrounded by all kinds of security measures, while I ran a thousand risks with neither bodyguards nor arms.

Just as I defended the soldiers then, now – when all others are once more silent – I tell them that they allowed themselves to be miserably deceived; and to the deception and shame of March 10th they have added the disgrace, the thousand times greater disgrace, of the fearful and unjustifiable crimes of Santiago de Cuba. From that time since, the uniform of the Army is splattered with blood. And as last year I told the people and cried out before the Courts that soldiers were working as slaves on private estates, today I make the bitter charge that there are soldiers stained from head to toe with the blood of the Cuban youths they have tortured and slain. And I say as well that if the Army serves the Republic, defends the nation, respects the people and protects the citizenry then it is only fair that the soldier should earn at least a hundred pesos a month. But if the soldiers slay and oppress the people, betray the nation and defend only the interests of one small group, then the Army deserves not a cent of the Republic’s money and Camp Columbia should be converted into a school with ten thousand orphans living there instead of soldiers.

I want to be just above all else, so I can’t blame all the soldiers for the shameful crimes that stain a few evil and treacherous Army men. But every honorable and upstanding soldier who loves his career and his uniform is dutybound to demand and to fight for the cleansing of this guilt, to avenge this betrayal and to see the guilty punished. Otherwise the soldier’s uniform will forever be a mark of infamy instead of a source of pride.

Of course the March 10th regime had no choice but to remove the soldiers from the private estates. But it did so only to put them to work as doormen, chauffeurs, servants and bodyguards for the whole rabble of petty politicians who make up the party of the Dictatorship. Every fourth or fifth rank official considers himself entitled to the services of a soldier to drive his car and to watch over him as if he were constantly afraid of receiving the kick in the pants he so justly deserves.

If they had been at all interested in promoting real reforms, why did the regime not confiscate the estates and the millions of men like Genovevo Pérez Dámera, who acquired their fortunes by exploiting soldiers, driving them like slaves and misappropriating the funds of the Armed Forces? But no: Genovevo Pérez and others like him no doubt still have soldiers protecting them on their estates because the March 10th generals, deep in their hearts, aspire to the same future and can’t allow that kind of precedent to be set.

The 10th of March was a miserable deception, yes … After Batista and his band of corrupt and disreputable politicians had failed in their electoral plan, they took advantage of the Army’s discontent and used it to climb to power on the backs of the soldiers. And I know there are many Army men who are disgusted because they have been disappointed. At first their pay was raised, but later, through deductions and reductions of every kind, it was lowered again. Many of the old elements, who had drifted away from the Armed Forces, returned to the ranks and blocked the way of young, capable and valuable men who might otherwise have advanced. Good soldiers have been neglected while the most scandalous nepotism prevails. Many decent military men are now asking themselves what need that Armed Forces had to assume the tremendous historical responsibility of destroying our Constitution merely to put a group of immoral men in power, men of bad reputation, corrupt, politically degenerate beyond redemption, who could never again have occupied a political post had it not been at bayonet-point; and they weren’t even the ones with the bayonets in their hands …

On the other hand, the soldiers endure a worse tyranny than the civilians. They are under constant surveillance and not one of them enjoys the slightest security in his job. Any unjustified suspicion, any gossip, any intrigue, or denunciation, is sufficient to bring transfer, dishonorable discharge or imprisonment. Did not Tabernilla, in a memorandum, forbid them to talk with anyone opposed to the government, that is to say, with ninety-nine percent of the people? … What a lack of confidence! … Not even the vestal virgins of Rome had to abide by such a rule! As for the much publicized little houses for enlisted men, there aren’t 300 on the whole Island; yet with what has been spent on tanks, guns and other weaponry every soldier might have a place to live. Batista isn’t concerned with taking care of the Army, but that the Army take care of him! He increases the Army’s power of oppression and killing but does not improve living conditions for the soldiers. Triple guard duty, constant confinement to barracks, continuous anxiety, the enmity of the people, uncertainty about the future – this is what has been given to the soldier. In other words: ‘Die for the regime, soldier, give it your sweat and blood. We shall dedicate a speech to you and award you a posthumous promotion (when it no longer matters) and afterwards … we shall go on living luxuriously, making ourselves rich. Kill, abuse, oppress the people. When the people get tired and all this comes to an end, you can pay for our crimes while we go abroad and live like kings. And if one day we return, don’t you or your children knock on the doors of our mansions, for we shall be millionaires and millionaires do not mingle with the poor. Kill, soldier, oppress the people, die for the regime, give your sweat and blood …’

But if blind to this sad truth, a minority of soldiers had decided to fight the people, the people who were going to liberate them from tyranny, victory still would have gone to the people. The Honorable Prosecutor was very interested in knowing our chances for success. These chances were based on considerations of technical, military and social order. They have tried to establish the myth that modern arms render the people helpless in overthrowing tyrants. Military parades and the pompous display of machines of war are used to perpetuate this myth and to create a complex of absolute impotence in the people. But no weaponry, no violence can vanquish the people once they are determined to win back their rights. Both past and present are full of examples. The most recent is the revolt in Bolivia, where miners with dynamite sticks smashed and defeated regular army regiments.

Fortunately, we Cubans need not look for examples abroad. No example is as inspiring as that of our own land. During the war of 1895 there were nearly half a million armed Spanish soldiers in Cuba, many more than the Dictator counts upon today to hold back a population five times greater. The arms of the Spaniards were, incomparably, both more up to date and more powerful than those of our mambises. Often the Spaniards were equipped with field artillery and the infantry used breechloaders similar to those still in use by the infantry of today. The Cubans were usually armed with no more than their machetes, for their cartridge belts were almost always empty. There is an unforgettable passage in the history of our War of Independence, narrated by General Miró Argenter, Chief of Antonio Maceo’s General Staff. I managed to bring it copied on this scrap of paper so I wouldn’t have to depend upon my memory:

‘Untrained men under the command of Pedro Delgado, most of them equipped only with machetes, were virtually annihilated as they threw themselves on the solid rank of Spaniards. It is not an exaggeration to assert that of every fifty men, 25 were killed. Some even attacked the Spaniards with their bare fists, without machetes, without even knives. Searching through the reeds by the Hondo River, we found fifteen more dead from the Cuban party, and it was not immediately clear what group they belonged to, They did not appear to have shouldered arms, their clothes were intact and only tin drinking cups hung from their waists; a few steps further on lay the dead horse, all its equipment in order. We reconstructed the climax of the tragedy. These men, following their daring chief, Lieutenant Colonel Pedro Delgado, had earned heroes’ laurels: they had thrown themselves against bayonets with bare hands, the clash of metal which was heard around them was the sound of their drinking cups banging against the saddlehorn. Maceo was deeply moved. This man so used to seeing death in all its forms murmured this praise: “I had never seen anything like this, untrained and unarmed men attacking the Spaniards with only drinking cups for weapons. And I called it impedimenta!”‘

This is how peoples fight when they want to win their freedom; they throw stones at airplanes and overturn tanks!

As soon as Santiago de Cuba was in our hands we would immediately have readied the people of Oriente for war. Bayamo was attacked precisely to locate our advance forces along the Cauto River. Never forget that this province, which has a million and a half inhabitants today, is the most rebellious and patriotic in Cuba. It was this province that sparked the fight for independence for thirty years and paid the highest price in blood, sacrifice and heroism. In Oriente you can still breathe the air of that glorious epic. At dawn, when the cocks crow as if they were bugles calling soldiers to reveille, and when the sun rises radiant over the rugged mountains, it seems that once again we will live the days of Yara or Baire!

I stated that the second consideration on which we based our chances for success was one of social order. Why were we sure of the people’s support? When we speak of the people we are not talking about those who live in comfort, the conservative elements of the nation, who welcome any repressive regime, any dictatorship, any despotism, prostrating themselves before the masters of the moment until they grind their foreheads into the ground. When we speak of struggle and we mention the people we mean the vast unredeemed masses, those to whom everyone makes promises and who are deceived by all; we mean the people who yearn for a better, more dignified and more just nation; who are moved by ancestral aspirations to justice, for they have suffered injustice and mockery generation after generation; those who long for great and wise changes in all aspects of their life; people who, to attain those changes, are ready to give even the very last breath they have when they believe in something or in someone, especially when they believe in themselves. The first condition of sincerity and good faith in any endeavor is to do precisely what nobody else ever does, that is, to speak with absolute clarity, without fear. The demagogues and professional politicians who manage to perform the miracle of being right about everything and of pleasing everyone are, necessarily, deceiving everyone about everything. The revolutionaries must proclaim their ideas courageously, define their principles and express their intentions so that no one is deceived, neither friend nor foe.

In terms of struggle, when we talk about people we’re talking about the six hundred thousand Cubans without work, who want to earn their daily bread honestly without having to emigrate from their homeland in search of a livelihood; the five hundred thousand farm laborers who live in miserable shacks, who work four months of the year and starve the rest, sharing their misery with their children, who don’t have an inch of land to till and whose existence would move any heart not made of stone; the four hundred thousand industrial workers and laborers whose retirement funds have been embezzled, whose benefits are being taken away, whose homes are wretched quarters, whose salaries pass from the hands of the boss to those of the moneylender, whose future is a pay reduction and dismissal, whose life is endless work and whose only rest is the tomb; the one hundred thousand small farmers who live and die working land that is not theirs, looking at it with the sadness of Moses gazing at the promised land, to die without ever owning it, who like feudal serfs have to pay for the use of their parcel of land by giving up a portion of its produce, who cannot love it, improve it, beautify it nor plant a cedar or an orange tree on it because they never know when a sheriff will come with the rural guard to evict them from it; the thirty thousand teachers and professors who are so devoted, dedicated and so necessary to the better destiny of future generations and who are so badly treated and paid; the twenty thousand small business men weighed down by debts, ruined by the crisis and harangued by a plague of grafting and venal officials; the ten thousand young professional people: doctors, engineers, lawyers, veterinarians, school teachers, dentists, pharmacists, newspapermen, painters, sculptors, etc., who finish school with their degrees anxious to work and full of hope, only to find themselves at a dead end, all doors closed to them, and where no ears hear their clamor or supplication. These are the people, the ones who know misfortune and, therefore, are capable of fighting with limitless courage! To these people whose desperate roads through life have been paved with the bricks of betrayal and false promises, we were not going to say: ‘We will give you …’ but rather: ‘Here it is, now fight for it with everything you have, so that liberty and happiness may be yours!’

The five revolutionary laws that would have been proclaimed immediately after the capture of the Moncada Barracks and would have been broadcast to the nation by radio must be included in the indictment. It is possible that Colonel Chaviano may deliberately have destroyed these documents, but even if he has I remember them.

The first revolutionary law would have returned power to the people and proclaimed the 1940 Constitution the Supreme Law of the State until such time as the people should decide to modify or change it. And in order to effect its implementation and punish those who violated it – there being no electoral organization to carry this out – the revolutionary movement, as the circumstantial incarnation of this sovereignty, the only source of legitimate power, would have assumed all the faculties inherent therein, except that of modifying the Constitution itself: in other words, it would have assumed the legislative, executive and judicial powers.

This attitude could not be clearer nor more free of vacillation and sterile charlatanry. A government acclaimed by the mass of rebel people would be vested with every power, everything necessary in order to proceed with the effective implementation of popular will and real justice. From that moment, the Judicial Power – which since March 10th had placed itself against and outside the Constitution – would cease to exist and we would proceed to its immediate and total reform before it would once again assume the power granted it by the Supreme Law of the Republic. Without these previous measures, a return to legality by putting its custody back into the hands that have crippled the system so dishonorably would constitute a fraud, a deceit, one more betrayal.

The second revolutionary law would give non-mortgageable and non-transferable ownership of the land to all tenant and subtenant farmers, lessees, share croppers and squatters who hold parcels of five caballerías of land or less, and the State would indemnify the former owners on the basis of the rental which they would have received for these parcels over a period of ten years.

The third revolutionary law would have granted workers and employees the right to share 30% of the profits of all the large industrial, mercantile and mining enterprises, including the sugar mills. The strictly agricultural enterprises would be exempt in consideration of other agrarian laws which would be put into effect.

The fourth revolutionary law would have granted all sugar planters the right to share 55% of sugar production and a minimum quota of forty thousand arrobas for all small tenant farmers who have been established for three years or more.

The fifth revolutionary law would have ordered the confiscation of all holdings and ill-gotten gains of those who had committed frauds during previous regimes, as well as the holdings and ill-gotten gains of all their legates and heirs. To implement this, special courts with full powers would gain access to all records of all corporations registered or operating in this country, in order to investigate concealed funds of illegal origin, and to request that foreign governments extradite persons and attach holdings rightfully belonging to the Cuban people. Half of the property recovered would be used to subsidize retirement funds for workers and the other half would be used for hospitals, asylums and charitable organizations.

Furthermore, it was declared that the Cuban policy in the Americas would be one of close solidarity with the democratic peoples of this continent, and that all those politically persecuted by bloody tyrannies oppressing our sister nations would find generous asylum, brotherhood and bread in the land of Martí; not the persecution, hunger and treason they find today. Cuba should be the bulwark of liberty and not a shameful link in the chain of despotism.

These laws would have been proclaimed immediately. As soon as the upheaval ended and prior to a detailed and far reaching study, they would have been followed by another series of laws and fundamental measures, such as the Agrarian Reform, the Integral Educational Reform, nationalization of the electric power trust and the telephone trust, refund to the people of the illegal and repressive rates these companies have charged, and payment to the treasury of all taxes brazenly evaded in the past.

All these laws and others would be based on the exact compliance of two essential articles of our Constitution: one of them orders the outlawing of large estates, indicating the maximum area of land any one person or entity may own for each type of agricultural enterprise, by adopting measures which would tend to revert the land to the Cubans. The other categorically orders the State to use all means at its disposal to provide employment to all those who lack it and to ensure a decent livelihood to each manual or intellectual laborer. None of these laws can be called unconstitutional. The first popularly elected government would have to respect them, not only because of moral obligations to the nation, but because when people achieve something they have yearned for throughout generations, no force in the world is capable of taking it away again.

The problem of the land, the problem of industrialization, the problem of housing, the problem of unemployment, the problem of education and the problem of the people’s health: these are the six problems we would take immediate steps to solve, along with restoration of civil liberties and political democracy.

This exposition may seem cold and theoretical if one does not know the shocking and tragic conditions of the country with regard to these six problems, along with the most humiliating political oppression.

Eighty-five per cent of the small farmers in Cuba pay rent and live under constant threat of being evicted from the land they till. More than half of our most productive land is in the hands of foreigners. In Oriente, the largest province, the lands of the United Fruit Company and the West Indian Company link the northern and southern coasts. There are two hundred thousand peasant families who do not have a single acre of land to till to provide food for their starving children. On the other hand, nearly three hundred thousand caballerías of cultivable land owned by powerful interests remain uncultivated. If Cuba is above all an agricultural State, if its population is largely rural, if the city depends on these rural areas, if the people from our countryside won our war of independence, if our nation’s greatness and prosperity depend on a healthy and vigorous rural population that loves the land and knows how to work it, if this population depends on a State that protects and guides it, then how can the present state of affairs be allowed to continue?

Except for a few food, lumber and textile industries, Cuba continues to be primarily a producer of raw materials. We export sugar to import candy, we export hides to import shoes, we export iron to import plows … Everyone agrees with the urgent need to industrialize the nation, that we need steel industries, paper and chemical industries, that we must improve our cattle and grain production, the technology and processing in our food industry in order to defend ourselves against the ruinous competition from Europe in cheese products, condensed milk, liquors and edible oils, and the United States in canned goods; that we need cargo ships; that tourism should be an enormous source of revenue. But the capitalists insist that the workers remain under the yoke. The State sits back with its arms crossed and industrialization can wait forever.

Just as serious or even worse is the housing problem. There are two hundred thousand huts and hovels in Cuba; four hundred thousand families in the countryside and in the cities live cramped in huts and tenements without even the minimum sanitary requirements; two million two hundred thousand of our urban population pay rents which absorb between one fifth and one third of their incomes; and two million eight hundred thousand of our rural and suburban population lack electricity. We have the same situation here: if the State proposes the lowering of rents, landlords threaten to freeze all construction; if the State does not interfere, construction goes on so long as landlords get high rents; otherwise they would not lay a single brick even though the rest of the population had to live totally exposed to the elements. The utilities monopoly is no better; they extend lines as far as it is profitable and beyond that point they don’t care if people have to live in darkness for the rest of their lives. The State sits back with its arms crossed and the people have neither homes nor electricity.

Our educational system is perfectly compatible with everything I’ve just mentioned. Where the peasant doesn’t own the land, what need is there for agricultural schools? Where there is no industry, what need is there for technical or vocational schools? Everything follows the same absurd logic; if we don’t have one thing we can’t have the other. In any small European country there are more than 200 technological and vocational schools; in Cuba only six such schools exist, and their graduates have no jobs for their skills. The little rural schoolhouses are attended by a mere half of the school age children – barefooted, half-naked and undernourished – and frequently the teacher must buy necessary school materials from his own salary. Is this the way to make a nation great?

Only death can liberate one from so much misery. In this respect, however, the State is most helpful – in providing early death for the people. Ninety per cent of the children in the countryside are consumed by parasites which filter through their bare feet from the ground they walk on. Society is moved to compassion when it hears of the kidnapping or murder of one child, but it is indifferent to the mass murder of so many thousands of children who die every year from lack of facilities, agonizing with pain. Their innocent eyes, death already shining in them, seem to look into some vague infinity as if entreating forgiveness for human selfishness, as if asking God to stay His wrath. And when the head of a family works only four months a year, with what can he purchase clothing and medicine for his children? They will grow up with rickets, with not a single good tooth in their mouths by the time they reach thirty; they will have heard ten million speeches and will finally die of misery and deception. Public hospitals, which are always full, accept only patients recommended by some powerful politician who, in return, demands the votes of the unfortunate one and his family so that Cuba may continue forever in the same or worse condition.

With this background, is it not understandable that from May to December over a million persons are jobless and that Cuba, with a population of five and a half million, has a greater number of unemployed than France or Italy with a population of forty million each?

When you try a defendant for robbery, Honorable Judges, do you ask him how long he has been unemployed? Do you ask him how many children he has, which days of the week he ate and which he didn’t, do you investigate his social context at all? You just send him to jail without further thought. But those who burn warehouses and stores to collect insurance do not go to jail, even though a few human beings may have gone up in flames. The insured have money to hire lawyers and bribe judges. You imprison the poor wretch who steals because he is hungry; but none of the hundreds who steal millions from the Government has ever spent a night in jail. You dine with them at the end of the year in some elegant club and they enjoy your respect. In Cuba, when a government official becomes a millionaire overnight and enters the fraternity of the rich, he could very well be greeted with the words of that opulent character out of Balzac – Taillefer – who in his toast to the young heir to an enormous fortune, said: ‘Gentlemen, let us drink to the power of gold! Mr. Valentine, a millionaire six times over, has just ascended the throne. He is king, can do everything, is above everyone, as all the rich are. Henceforth, equality before the law, established by the Constitution, will be a myth for him; for he will not be subject to laws: the laws will be subject to him. There are no courts nor are there sentences for millionaires.’

The nation’s future, the solutions to its problems, cannot continue to depend on the selfish interests of a dozen big businessmen nor on the cold calculations of profits that ten or twelve magnates draw up in their air-conditioned offices. The country cannot continue begging on its knees for miracles from a few golden calves, like the Biblical one destroyed by the prophet’s fury. Golden calves cannot perform miracles of any kind. The problems of the Republic can be solved only if we dedicate ourselves to fight for it with the same energy, honesty and patriotism our liberators had when they founded it. Statesmen like Carlos Saladrigas, whose statesmanship consists of preserving the statu quo and mouthing phrases like ‘absolute freedom of enterprise,’ ‘guarantees to investment capital’ and ‘law of supply and demand,’ will not solve these problems. Those ministers can chat away in a Fifth Avenue mansion until not even the dust of the bones of those whose problems require immediate solution remains. In this present-day world, social problems are not solved by spontaneous generation.

A revolutionary government backed by the people and with the respect of the nation, after cleansing the different institutions of all venal and corrupt officials, would proceed immediately to the country’s industrialization, mobilizing all inactive capital, currently estimated at about 1.5 billion pesos, through the National Bank and the Agricultural and Industrial Development Bank, and submitting this mammoth task to experts and men of absolute competence totally removed from all political machines for study, direction, planning and realization.

After settling the one hundred thousand small farmers as owners on the land which they previously rented, a revolutionary government would immediately proceed to settle the land problem. First, as set forth in the Constitution, it would establish the maximum amount of land to be held by each type of agricultural enterprise and would acquire the excess acreage by expropriation, recovery of swampland, planting of large nurseries, and reserving of zones for reforestation. Secondly, it would distribute the remaining land among peasant families with priority given to the larger ones, and would promote agricultural cooperatives for communal use of expensive equipment, freezing plants and unified professional technical management of farming and cattle raising. Finally, it would provide resources, equipment, protection and useful guidance to the peasants.

A revolutionary government would solve the housing problem by cutting all rents in half, by providing tax exemptions on homes inhabited by the owners; by tripling taxes on rented homes; by tearing down hovels and replacing them with modern apartment buildings; and by financing housing all over the island on a scale heretofore unheard of, with the criterion that, just as each rural family should possess its own tract of land, each city family should own its own house or apartment. There is plenty of building material and more than enough manpower to make a decent home for every Cuban. But if we continue to wait for the golden calf, a thousand years will have gone by and the problem will remain the same. On the other hand, today possibilities of taking electricity to the most isolated areas on the island are greater than ever. The use of nuclear energy in this field is now a reality and will greatly reduce the cost of producing electricity.

With these three projects and reforms, the problem of unemployment would automatically disappear and the task of improving public health and fighting against disease would become much less difficult.

Finally, a revolutionary government would undertake the integral reform of the educational system, bringing it into line with the projects just mentioned with the idea of educating those generations which will have the privilege of living in a happier land. Do not forget the words of the Apostle: ‘A grave mistake is being made in Latin America: in countries that live almost completely from the produce of the land, men are being educated exclusively for urban life and are not trained for farm life.’ ‘The happiest country is the one which has best educated its sons, both in the instruction of thought and the direction of their feelings.’ ‘An educated country will always be strong and free.’

The soul of education, however, is the teacher, and in Cuba the teaching profession is miserably underpaid. Despite this, no one is more dedicated than the Cuban teacher. Who among us has not learned his three Rs in the little public schoolhouse? It is time we stopped paying pittances to these young men and women who are entrusted with the sacred task of teaching our youth. No teacher should earn less than 200 pesos, no secondary teacher should make less than 350 pesos, if they are to devote themselves exclusively to their high calling without suffering want. What is more, all rural teachers should have free use of the various systems of transportation; and, at least once every five years, all teachers should enjoy a sabbatical leave of six months with pay so they may attend special refresher courses at home or abroad to keep abreast of the latest developments in their field. In this way, the curriculum and the teaching system can be easily improved. Where will the money be found for all this? When there is an end to the embezzlement of government funds, when public officials stop taking graft from the large companies that owe taxes to the State, when the enormous resources of the country are brought into full use, when we no longer buy tanks, bombers and guns for this country (which has no frontiers to defend and where these instruments of war, now being purchased, are used against the people), when there is more interest in educating the people than in killing them there will be more than enough money.

Cuba could easily provide for a population three times as great as it has now, so there is no excuse for the abject poverty of a single one of its present inhabitants. The markets should be overflowing with produce, pantries should be full, all hands should be working. This is not an inconceivable thought. What is inconceivable is that anyone should go to bed hungry while there is a single inch of unproductive land; that children should die for lack of medical attention; what is inconceivable is that 30% of our farm people cannot write their names and that 99% of them know nothing of Cuba’s history. What is inconceivable is that the majority of our rural people are now living in worse circumstances than the Indians Columbus discovered in the fairest land that human eyes had ever seen.

To those who would call me a dreamer, I quote the words of Martí: ‘A true man does not seek the path where advantage lies, but rather the path where duty lies, and this is the only practical man, whose dream of today will be the law of tomorrow, because he who has looked back on the essential course of history and has seen flaming and bleeding peoples seethe in the cauldron of the ages knows that, without a single exception, the future lies on the side of duty.’

Only when we understand that such a high ideal inspired them can we conceive of the heroism of the young men who fell in Santiago. The meager material means at our disposal was all that prevented sure success. When the soldiers were told that Prío had given us a million pesos, they were told this in the regime’s attempt to distort the most important fact: the fact that our Movement had no link with past politicians: that this Movement is a new Cuban generation with its own ideas, rising up against tyranny; that this Movement is made up of young people who were barely seven years old when Batista perpetrated the first of his crimes in 1934. The lie about the million pesos could not have been more absurd. If, with less than 20,000 pesos, we armed 165 men and attacked a regiment and a squadron, then with a million pesos we could have armed 8,000 men, to attack 50 regiments and 50 squadrons – and Ugalde Carrillo still would not have found out until Sunday, July 26th, at 5:15 a.m. I assure you that for every man who fought, twenty well trained men were unable to fight for lack of weapons. When these young men marched along the streets of Havana in the student demonstration of the Martí Centennial, they solidly packed six blocks. If even 200 more men had been able to fight, or we had possessed 20 more hand grenades, perhaps this Honorable Court would have been spared all this inconvenience.

The politicians spend millions buying off consciences, whereas a handful of Cubans who wanted to save their country’s honor had to face death barehanded for lack of funds. This shows how the country, to this very day, has been governed not by generous and dedicated men, but by political racketeers, the scum of our public life.

With the greatest pride I tell you that in accordance with our principles we have never asked a politician, past or present, for a penny. Our means were assembled with incomparable sacrifice. For example, Elpidio Sosa, who sold his job and came to me one day with 300 pesos ‘for the cause;’ Fernando Chenard, who sold the photographic equipment with which he earned his living; Pedro Marrero, who contributed several months’ salary and who had to be stopped from actually selling the very furniture in his house; Oscar Alcalde, who sold his pharmaceutical laboratory; Jesús Montané, who gave his five years’ savings, and so on with many others, each giving the little he had.

One must have great faith in one’s country to do such a thing. The memory of these acts of idealism bring me straight to the most bitter chapter of this defense – the price the tyranny made them pay for wanting to free Cuba from oppression and injustice.

Beloved corpses, you that once
Were the hope of my Homeland,
Cast upon my forehead
The dust of your decaying bones!
Touch my heart with your cold hands!
Groan at my ears!
Each of my moans will
Turn into the tears of one more tyrant!
Gather around me! Roam about,
That my soul may receive your spirits
And give me the horror of the tombs
For tears are not enough
When one lives in infamous bondage!

Multiply the crimes of November 27th, 1871 by ten and you will have the monstrous and repulsive crimes of July 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th, 1953, in the province of Oriente. These are still fresh in our memory, but someday when years have passed, when the skies of the nation have cleared once more, when tempers have calmed and fear no longer torments our spirits, then we will begin to see the magnitude of this massacre in all its shocking dimension, and future generations will be struck with horror when they look back on these acts of barbarity unprecedented in our history. But I do not want to become enraged. I need clearness of mind and peace in my heavy heart in order to relate the facts as simply as possible, in no sense dramatizing them, but just as they took place. As a Cuban I am ashamed that heartless men should have perpetrated such unthinkable crimes, dishonoring our nation before the rest of the world.

The tyrant Batista was never a man of scruples. He has never hesitated to tell his people the most outrageous lies. To justify his treacherous coup of March 10th, he concocted stories about a fictitious uprising in the Army, supposedly scheduled to take place in April, and which he ‘wanted to avert so that the Republic might not be drenched in blood.’ A ridiculous little tale nobody ever believed! And when he himself did want to drench the Republic in blood, when he wanted to smother in terror and torture the just rebellion of Cuba’s youth, who were not willing to be his slaves, then he contrived still more fantastic lies. How little respect one must have for a people when one tries to deceive them so miserably! On the very day of my arrest I publicly assumed the responsibility for our armed movement of July 26th. If there had been an iota of truth in even one of the many statements the Dictator made against our fighters in his speech of July 27th, it would have been enough to undermine the moral impact of my case. Why, then, was I not brought to trial? Why were medical certificates forged? Why did they violate all procedural laws and ignore so scandalously the rulings of the Court? Why were so many things done, things never before seen in a Court of Law, in order to prevent my appearance at all costs? In contrast, I could not begin to tell you all I went through in order to appear. I asked the Court to bring me to trial in accordance with all established principles, and I denounced the underhanded schemes that were afoot to prevent it. I wanted to argue with them face to face. But they did not wish to face me. Who was afraid of the truth, and who was not?

The statements made by the Dictator at Camp Columbia might be considered amusing if they were not so drenched in blood. He claimed we were a group of hirelings and that there were many foreigners among us. He said that the central part of our plan was an attempt to kill him – him, always him. As if the men who attacked the Moncada Barracks could not have killed him and twenty like him if they had approved of such methods. He stated that our attack had been planned by ex-President Prío, and that it had been financed with Prío’s money. It has been irrefutably proven that no link whatsoever existed between our Movement and the last regime. He claimed that we had machine guns and hand-grenades. Yet the military technicians have stated right here in this Court that we only had one machine gun and not a single hand-grenade. He said that we had beheaded the sentries. Yet death certificates and medical reports of all the Army’s casualties show not one death caused by the blade. But above all and most important, he said that we stabbed patients at the Military Hospital. Yet the doctors from that hospital – Army doctors – have testified that we never even occupied the building, that no patient was either wounded or killed by us, and that the hospital lost only one employee, a janitor, who imprudently stuck his head out of an open window.

Whenever a Chief of State, or anyone pretending to be one, makes declarations to the nation, he speaks not just to hear the sound of his own voice. He always has some specific purpose and expects some specific reaction, or has a given intention. Since our military defeat had already taken place, insofar as we no longer represented any actual threat to the dictatorship, why did they slander us like that? If it is still not clear that this was a blood-drenched speech, that it was simply an attempt to justify the crimes that they had been perpetrating since the night before and that they were going to continue to perpetrate, then, let figures speak for me: On July 27th, in his speech from the military headquarters, Batista said that the assailants suffered 32 dead. By the end of the week the number of dead had risen to more than 80 men. In what battles, where, in what clashes, did these young men die? Before Batista spoke, more than 25 prisoners had been murdered. After Batista spoke fifty more were massacred.

What a great sense of honor those modest Army technicians and professionals had, who did not distort the facts before the Court, but gave their reports adhering to the strictest truth! These surely are soldiers who honor their uniform; these, surely, are men! Neither a real soldier nor a true man can degrade his code of honor with lies and crime. I know that many of the soldiers are indignant at the barbaric assassinations perpetrated. I know that they feel repugnance and shame at the smell of homicidal blood that impregnates every stone of Moncada Barracks.

Now that he has been contradicted by men of honor within his own Army, I defy the dictator to repeat his vile slander against us. I defy him to try to justify before the Cuban people his July 27th speech. Let him not remain silent. Let him speak. Let him say who the assassins are, who the ruthless, the inhumane. Let him tell us if the medals of honor, which he went to pin on the breasts of his heroes of that massacre, were rewards for the hideous crimes they had committed. Let him, from this very moment, assume his responsibility before history. Let him not pretend, at a later date, that the soldiers were acting without direct orders from him! Let him offer the nation an explanation for those 70 murders. The bloodshed was great. The nation needs an explanation. The nation seeks it. The nation demands it.

It is common knowledge that in 1933, at the end of the battle at the National Hotel, some officers were murdered after they surrendered. Bohemia Magazine protested energetically. It is also known that after the surrender of Fort Atarés the besiegers’ machine guns cut down a row of prisoners. And that one soldier, after asking who Blas Hernández was, blasted him with a bullet directly in the face, and for this cowardly act was promoted to the rank of officer. It is well-known in Cuban history that assassination of prisoners was fatally linked with Batista’s name. How naive we were not to foresee this! However, unjustifiable as those killings of 1933 were, they took place in a matter of minutes, in no more time than it took for a round of machine gun fire. What is more, they took place while tempers were still on edge.

This was not the case in Santiago de Cuba. Here all forms of ferocious outrages and cruelty were deliberately overdone. Our men were killed not in the course of a minute, an hour or a day. Throughout an entire week the blows and tortures continued, men were thrown from rooftops and shot. All methods of extermination were incessantly practiced by well-skilled artisans of crime. Moncada Barracks were turned into a workshop of torture and death. Some shameful individuals turned their uniforms into butcher’s aprons. The walls were splattered with blood. The bullets imbedded in the walls were encrusted with singed bits of skin, brains and human hair, the grisly reminders of rifle shots fired full in the face. The grass around the barracks was dark and sticky with human blood. The criminal hands that are guiding the destiny of Cuba had written for the prisoners at the entrance to that den of death the very inscription of Hell: ‘Forsake all hope.’

They did not even attempt to cover appearances. They did not bother in the least to conceal what they were doing. They thought they had deceived the people with their lies and they ended up deceiving themselves. They felt themselves lords and masters of the universe, with power over life and death. So the fear they had experienced upon our attack at daybreak was dissipated in a feast of corpses, in a drunken orgy of blood.

Chronicles of our history, down through four and a half centuries, tell us of many acts of cruelty: the slaughter of defenseless Indians by the Spaniards; the plundering and atrocities of pirates along the coast; the barbarities of the Spanish soldiers during our War of Independence; the shooting of prisoners of the Cuban Army by the forces of Weyler; the horrors of the Machado regime, and so on through the bloody crimes of March, 1935. But never has such a sad and bloody page been written in numbers of victims and in the viciousness of the victimizers, as in Santiago de Cuba. Only one man in all these centuries has stained with blood two separate periods of our history and has dug his claws into the flesh of two generations of Cubans. To release this river of blood, he waited for the Centennial of the Apostle, just after the fiftieth anniversary of the Republic, whose people fought for freedom, human rights and happiness at the cost of so many lives. Even greater is his crime and even more condemnable because the man who perpetrated it had already, for eleven long years, lorded over his people – this people who, by such deep-rooted sentiment and tradition, loves freedom and repudiates evil. This man has furthermore never been sincere, loyal, honest or chivalrous for a single minute of his public life.

He was not content with the treachery of January, 1934, the crimes of March, 1935 and the forty million dollar fortune that crowned his first regime. He had to add the treason of March, 1952, the crimes of July, 1953, and all the millions that only time will reveal. Dante divided his Inferno into nine circles. He put criminals in the seventh, thieves in the eighth and traitors in the ninth. Difficult dilemma the devils will be faced with, when they try to find an adequate spot for this man’s soul – if this man has a soul. The man who instigated the atrocious acts in Santiago de Cuba doesn’t even have a heart.

I know many details of the way in which these crimes were carried out, from the lips of some of the soldiers who, filled with shame, told me of the scenes they had witnessed.

When the fighting was over, the soldiers descended like savage beasts on Santiago de Cuba and they took the first fury of their frustrations out against the defenseless population. In the middle of a street, and far from the site of the fighting, they shot through the chest an innocent child who was playing by his doorstep. When the father approached to pick him up, they shot him through his head. Without a word they shot ‘Niño’ Cala, who was on his way home with a loaf of bread in his hands. It would be an endless task to relate all the crimes and outrages perpetrated against the civilian population. And if the Army dealt thus with those who had had no part at all in the action, you can imagine the terrible fate of the prisoners who had taken part or who were believed to have taken part. Just as, in this trial, they accused many people not at all involved in our attack, they also killed many prisoners who had no involvement whatsoever. The latter are not included in the statistics of victims released by the regime; those statistics refer exclusively to our men. Some day the total number of victims will be known.

The first prisoner killed has our doctor, Mario Muñoz, who bore no arms, wore no uniform, and was dressed in the white smock of a physician. He was a generous and competent man who would have given the same devoted care to the wounded adversary as to a friend. On the road from the Civilian Hospital to the barracks they shot him in the back and left him lying there, face down in a pool of blood. But the mass murder of prisoners did not begin until after three o’clock in the afternoon. Until this hour they awaited orders. Then General Martín Díaz Tamayo arrived from Havana and brought specific instructions from a meeting he had attended with Batista, along with the head of the Army, the head of the Military Intelligence, and others. He said: ‘It is humiliating and dishonorable for the Army to have lost three times as many men in combat as the insurgents did. Ten prisoners must be killed for each dead soldier.’ This was the order!

In every society there are men of base instincts. The sadists, brutes, conveyors of all the ancestral atavisms go about in the guise of human beings, but they are monsters, only more or less restrained by discipline and social habit. If they are offered a drink from a river of blood, they will not be satisfied until they drink the river dry. All these men needed was the order. At their hands the best and noblest Cubans perished: the most valiant, the most honest, the most idealistic. The tyrant called them mercenaries. There they were dying as heroes at the hands of men who collect a salary from the Republic and who, with the arms the Republic gave them to defend her, serve the interests of a clique and murder her best citizens.

Throughout their torturing of our comrades, the Army offered them the chance to save their lives by betraying their ideology and falsely declaring that Prío had given them money. When they indignantly rejected that proposition, the Army continued with its horrible tortures. They crushed their testicles and they tore out their eyes. But no one yielded. No complaint was heard nor a favor asked. Even when they had been deprived of their vital organs, our men were still a thousand times more men than all their tormentors together. Photographs, which do not lie, show the bodies torn to pieces, Other methods were used. Frustrated by the valor of the men, they tried to break the spirit of our women. With a bleeding eye in their hands, a sergeant and several other men went to the cell where our comrades Melba Hernández and Haydée Santamaría were held. Addressing the latter, and showing her the eye, they said: ‘This eye belonged to your brother. If you will not tell us what he refused to say, we will tear out the other.’ She, who loved her valiant brother above all things, replied full of dignity: ‘If you tore out an eye and he did not speak, much less will I.’ Later they came back and burned their arms with lit cigarettes until at last, filled with spite, they told the young Haydée Santamaría: ‘You no longer have a fiancé because we have killed him too.’ But still imperturbable, she answered: ‘He is not dead, because to die for one’s country is to live forever.’ Never had the heroism and the dignity of Cuban womanhood reached such heights.

There wasn’t even any respect for the combat wounded in the various city hospitals. There they were hunted down as prey pursued by vultures. In the Centro Gallego they broke into the operating room at the very moment when two of our critically wounded were receiving blood transfusions. They pulled them off the tables and, as the wounded could no longer stand, they were dragged down to the first floor where they arrived as corpses.

They could not do the same in the Spanish Clinic, where Gustavo Arcos and José Ponce were patients, because they were prevented by Dr. Posada who bravely told them they could enter only over his dead body.

Air and camphor were injected into the veins of Pedro Miret, Abelardo Crespo and Fidel Labrador, in an attempt to kill them at the Military Hospital. They owe their lives to Captain Tamayo, an Army doctor and true soldier of honor who, pistol in hand, wrenched them out of the hands of their merciless captors and transferred them to the Civilian Hospital. These five young men were the only ones of our wounded who survived.

In the early morning hours, groups of our men were removed from the barracks and taken in automobiles to Siboney, La Maya, Songo, and elsewhere. Then they were led out – tied, gagged, already disfigured by the torture – and were murdered in isolated spots. They are recorded as having died in combat against the Army. This went on for several days, and few of the captured prisoners survived. Many were compelled to dig their own graves. One of our men, while he was digging, wheeled around and slashed the face of one of his assassins with his pick. Others were even buried alive, their hands tied behind their backs. Many solitary spots became the graveyards of the brave. On the Army target range alone, five of our men lie buried. Some day these men will be disinterred. Then they will be carried on the shoulders of the people to a place beside the tomb of Martí, and their liberated land will surely erect a monument to honor the memory of the Martyrs of the Centennial.

The last youth they murdered in the surroundings of Santiago de Cuba was Marcos Martí. He was captured with our comrade Ciro Redondo in a cave at Siboney on the morning of Thursday the 30th. These two men were led down the road, with their arms raised, and the soldiers shot Marcos Martí in the back. After he had fallen to the ground, they riddled him with bullets. Redondo was taken to the camp. When Major Pérez Chaumont saw him he exclaimed: ‘And this one? Why have you brought him to me?’ The Court heard this incident from Redondo himself, the young man who survived thanks to what Pérez Chaumont called ‘the soldiers’ stupidity.’

It was the same throughout the province. Ten days after July 26th, a newspaper in this city printed the news that two young men had been found hanged on the road from Manzanillo to Bayamo. Later the bodies were identified as those of Hugo Camejo and Pedro Vélez. Another extraordinary incident took place there: There were three victims – they had been dragged from Manzanillo Barracks at two that morning. At a certain spot on the highway they were taken out, beaten unconscious, and strangled with a rope. But after they had been left for dead, one of them, Andrés García, regained consciousness and hid in a farmer’s house. Thanks to this the Court learned the details of this crime too. Of all our men taken prisoner in the Bayamo area, this is the only survivor.

Near the Cauto River, in a spot known as Barrancas, at the bottom of a pit, lie the bodies of Raúl de Aguiar, Armando del Valle and Andrés Valdés. They were murdered at midnight on the road between Alto Cedro and Palma Soriano by Sergeant Montes de Oca – in charge of the military post at Miranda Barracks – Corporal Maceo, and the Lieutenant in charge of Alta Cedro where the murdered men were captured. In the annals of crime, Sergeant Eulalio Gonzáles – better known as the ‘Tiger’ of Moncada Barracks – deserves a special place. Later this man didn’t have the slightest qualms in bragging about his unspeakable deeds. It was he who with his own hands murdered our comrade Abel Santamaría. But that didn’t satisfy him. One day as he was coming back from the Puerto Boniato Prison, where he raises pedigree fighting cocks in the back courtyard, he got on a bus on which Abel’s mother was also traveling. When this monster realized who she was he began to brag about his grisly deeds, and – in a loud voice so that the woman dressed in mourning could hear him – he said: ‘Yes, I have gouged many eyes out and I expect to continue gouging them out.’ The unprecedented moral degradation our nation is suffering is expressed beyond the power of words in that mother’s sobs of grief before the cowardly insolence of the very man who murdered her son. When these mothers went to Moncada Barracks to ask about their sons, it was with incredible cynicism and sadism that they were told: ‘Surely madam, you may see him at the Santa Ifigenia Hotel where we have put him up for you.’ Either Cuba is not Cuba, or the men responsible for these acts will have to face their reckoning one day. Heartless men, they threw crude insults at the people who bared their heads in reverence as the corpses of the revolutionaries were carried by.

There were so many victims that the government still has not dared make public the complete list. They know their figures are false. They have all the victims’ names, because prior to every murder they recorded all the vital statistics. The whole long process of identification through the National Identification Bureau was a huge farce, and there are families still waiting for word of their sons’ fate. Why has this not been cleared up, after three months?

I wish to state for the record here that all the victims’ pockets were picked to the very last penny and that all their personal effects, rings and watches, were stripped from their bodies and are brazenly being worn today by their assassins.

Honorable Judges, a great deal of what I have just related you already know, from the testimony of many of my comrades. But please note that many key witnesses have been barred from this trial, although they were permitted to attend the sessions of the previous trial. For example, I want to point out that the nurses of the Civilian Hospital are absent, even though they work in the same place where this hearing is being held. They were kept from this Court so that, under my questioning, they would not be able to testify that – besides Dr. Mario Muñoz – twenty more of our men were captured alive. The regime fears that from the questioning of these witnesses some extremely dangerous testimony could find its way into the official transcript.

But Major Pérez Chaumont did appear here and he could not elude my questioning. What we learned from this man, a ‘hero’ who fought only against unarmed and handcuffed men, gives us an idea of what could have been learned at the Courthouse if I had not been isolated from the proceedings. I asked him how many of our men had died in his celebrated skirmishes at Siboney. He hesitated. I insisted and he finally said twenty-one. Since I knew such skirmishes had never taken place, I asked him how many of our men had been wounded. He answered: ‘None. All of them were killed.’ It was then that I asked him, in astonishment, if the soldiers were using nuclear weapons. Of course, where men are shot point blank, there are no wounded. Then I asked him how many casualties the Army had sustained. He replied that two of his men had been wounded. Finally I asked him if either of these men had died, and he said no. I waited. Later, all of the wounded Army soldiers filed by and it was discovered that none of them had been wounded at Siboney. This same Major Pérez Chaumont who hardly flinched at having assassinated twenty-one defenseless young men has built a palatial home in Ciudamar Beach. It’s worth more than 100,000 pesos – his savings after only a few months under Batista’s new rule. And if this is the savings of a Major, imagine how much generals have saved!

Honorable Judges: Where are our men who were captured July 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th? It is known that more than sixty men were captured in the area of Santiago de Cuba. Only three of them and the two women have been brought before the Court. The rest of the accused were seized later. Where are our wounded? Only five of them are alive; the rest were murdered. These figures are irrefutable. On the other hand, twenty of the soldiers who we held prisoner have been presented here and they themselves have declared that they received not even one offensive word from us. Thirty soldiers who were wounded, many in the street fighting, also appeared before you. Not one was killed by us. If the Army suffered losses of nineteen dead and thirty wounded, how is it possible that we should have had eighty dead and only five wounded? Who ever witnessed a battle with 21 dead and no wounded, like these famous battles described by Pérez Chaumont?

We have here the casualty lists from the bitter fighting sustained by the invasion troops in the war of 1895, both in battles where the Cuban army was defeated and where it was victorious. The battle of Los Indios in Las Villas: 12 wounded, none dead. The battle of Mal Tiempo: 4 dead, 23 wounded. Calimete: 16 dead, 64 wounded. La Palma: 39 dead, 88 wounded. Cacarajícara: 5 dead, 13 wounded. Descanso: 4 dead, 45 wounded. San Gabriel de Lombillo: 2 dead, 18 wounded … In all these battles the number of wounded is twice, three times and up to ten times the number of dead, although in those days there were no modern medical techniques by which the percentage of deaths could be reduced. How then, now, can we explain the enormous proportion of sixteen deaths per wounded man, if not by the government’s slaughter of the wounded in the very hospitals, and by the assassination of the other helpless prisoners they had taken? The figures are irrefutable.

‘It is shameful and a dishonor to the Army to have lost three times as many men in combat as those lost by the insurgents; we must kill ten prisoners for each dead soldier.’ This is the concept of honor held by the petty corporals who became generals on March 10th. This is the code of honor they wish to impose on the national Army. A false honor, a feigned honor, an apparent honor based on lies, hypocrisy and crime; a mask of honor molded by those assassins with blood. Who told them that to die fighting is dishonorable? Who told them the honor of an army consists of murdering the wounded and prisoners of war?

In war time, armies that murder prisoners have always earned the contempt and abomination of the entire world. Such cowardice has no justification, even in a case where national territory is invaded by foreign troops. In the words of a South American liberator: ‘Not even the strictest military obedience may turn a soldier’s sword into that of an executioner.’ The honorable soldier does not kill the helpless prisoner after the fight, but rather, respects him. He does not finish off a wounded man, but rather, helps him. He stands in the way of crime and if he cannot prevent it, he acts as did that Spanish captain who, upon hearing the shots of the firing squad that murdered Cuban students, indignantly broke his sword in two and refused to continue serving in that Army.

The soldiers who murdered their prisoners were not worthy of the soldiers who died. I saw many soldiers fight with courage – for example, those in the patrols that fired their machine guns against us in almost hand-to-hand combat, or that sergeant who, defying death, rang the alarm to mobilize the barracks. Some of them live. I am glad. Others are dead. They believed they were doing their duty and in my eyes this makes them worthy of admiration and respect. I deplore only the fact that valiant men should fall for an evil cause. When Cuba is freed, we should respect, shelter and aid the wives and children of those courageous soldiers who perished fighting against us. They are not to blame for Cuba’s miseries. They too are victims of this nefarious situation.

But what honor was earned by the soldiers who died in battle was lost by the generals who ordered prisoners to be killed after they surrendered. Men who became generals overnight, without ever having fired a shot; men who bought their stars with high treason against their country; men who ordered the execution of prisoners taken in battles in which they didn’t even participate: these are the generals of the 10th of March – generals who would not even have been fit to drive the mules that carried the equipment in Antonio Maceo’s army.

The Army suffered three times as many casualties as we did. That was because our men were expertly trained, as the Army men themselves have admitted; and also because we had prepared adequate tactical measures, another fact recognized by the Army. The Army did not perform brilliantly; despite the millions spent on espionage by the Military Intelligence Agency, they were totally taken by surprise, and their hand grenades failed to explode because they were obsolete. And the Army owes all this to generals like Martín Díaz Tamayo and colonels like Ugalde Carrillo and Albert del Río Chaviano. We were not 17 traitors infiltrated into the ranks of the Army, as was the case on March 10th. Instead, we were 165 men who had traveled the length and breadth of Cuba to look death boldly in the face. If the Army leaders had a notion of real military honor they would have resigned their commands rather than trying to wash away their shame and incompetence in the blood of their prisoners.

To kill helpless prisoners and then declare that they died in battle: that is the military capacity of the generals of March 10th. That was the way the worst butchers of Valeriano Weyler behaved in the cruelest years of our War of Independence. The Chronicles of War include the following story: ‘On February 23rd, officer Baldomero Acosta entered Punta Brava with some cavalry when, from the opposite road, a squad of the Pizarro regiment approached, led by a sergeant known in those parts as Barriguilla (Pot Belly). The insurgents exchanged a few shots with Pizarro’s men, then withdrew by the trail that leads from Punta Brava to the village of Guatao. Followed by another battalion of volunteers from Marianao, and a company of troops from the Public Order Corps, who were led by Captain Calvo, Pizarro’s squad of 50 men marched on Guatao … As soon as their first forces entered the village they commenced their massacre – killing twelve of the peaceful inhabitants … The troops led by Captain Calvo speedily rounded up all the civilians that were running about the village, tied them up and took them as prisoners of war to Havana … Not yet satisfied with their outrages, on the outskirts of Guatao they carried out another barbaric action, killing one of the prisoners and horribly wounding the rest. The Marquis of Cervera, a cowardly and palatine soldier, informed Weyler of the pyrrhic victory of the Spanish soldiers; but Major Zugasti, a man of principles, denounced the incident to the government and officially called the murders perpetrated by the criminal Captain Calvo and Sergeant Barriguilla an assassination of peaceful citizens.

‘Weyler’s intervention in this horrible incident and his delight upon learning the details of the massacre may be palpably deduced from the official dispatch that he sent to the Ministry of War concerning these cruelties. “Small column organized by commander Marianao with forces from garrison, volunteers and firemen led by Captain Calvo, fought and destroyed bands of Villanueva and Baldomero Acosta near Punta Brava, killing twenty of theirs, who were handed over to Mayor of Guatao for burial, and taking fifteen prisoners, one of them wounded, we assume there are many wounded among them. One of ours suffered critical wounds, some suffered light bruises and wounds. Weyler.”‘

What is the difference between Weyler’s dispatch and that of Colonel Chaviano detailing the victories of Major Pérez Chaumont? Only that Weyler mentions one wounded soldier in his ranks. Chaviano mentions two. Weyler speaks of one wounded man and fifteen prisoners in the enemy’s ranks. Chaviano records neither wounded men nor prisoners.

Just as I admire the courage of the soldiers who died bravely, I also admire the officers who bore themselves with dignity and did not drench their hands in this blood. Many of the survivors owe their lives to the commendable conduct of officers like Lieutenant Sarría, Lieutenant Campa, Captain Tamayo and others, who were true gentlemen in their treatment of the prisoners. If men like these had not partially saved the name of the Armed Forces, it would be more honorable today to wear a dishrag than to wear an Army uniform.

For my dead comrades, I claim no vengeance. Since their lives were priceless, the murderers could not pay for them even with their own lives. It is not by blood that we may redeem the lives of those who died for their country. The happiness of their people is the only tribute worthy of them.

What is more, my comrades are neither dead nor forgotten; they live today, more than ever, and their murderers will view with dismay the victorious spirit of their ideas rise from their corpses. Let the Apostle speak for me: ‘There is a limit to the tears we can shed at the graveside of the dead. Such limit is the infinite love for the homeland and its glory, a love that never falters, loses hope nor grows dim. For the graves of the martyrs are the highest altars of our reverence.’

… When one dies
In the arms of a grateful country
Agony ends, prison chains break – and
At last, with death, life begins!

Up to this point I have confined myself almost exclusively to relating events. Since I am well aware that I am before a Court convened to judge me, I will now demonstrate that all legal right was on our side alone, and that the verdict imposed on my comrades – the verdict now being sought against me – has no justification in reason, in social morality or in terms of true justice.

I wish to be duly respectful to the Honorable Judges, and I am grateful that you find in the frankness of my plea no animosity towards you. My argument is meant simply to demonstrate what a false and erroneous position the Judicial Power has adopted in the present situation. To a certain extent, each Court is nothing more than a cog in the wheel of the system, and therefore must move along the course determined by the vehicle, although this by no means justifies any individual acting against his principles. I know very well that the oligarchy bears most of the blame. The oligarchy, without dignified protest, abjectly yielded to the dictates of the usurper and betrayed their country by renouncing the autonomy of the Judicial Power. Men who constitute noble exceptions have attempted to mend the system’s mangled honor with their individual decisions. But the gestures of this minority have been of little consequence, drowned as they were by the obsequious and fawning majority. This fatalism, however, will not stop me from speaking the truth that supports my cause. My appearance before this Court may be a pure farce in order to give a semblance of legality to arbitrary decisions, but I am determined to wrench apart with a firm hand the infamous veil that hides so much shamelessness. It is curious: the very men who have brought me here to be judged and condemned have never heeded a single decision of this Court.

Since this trial may, as you said, be the most important trial since we achieved our national sovereignty, what I say here will perhaps be lost in the silence which the dictatorship has tried to impose on me, but posterity will often turn its eyes to what you do here. Remember that today you are judging an accused man, but that you yourselves will be judged not once, but many times, as often as these days are submitted to scrutiny in the future. What I say here will be then repeated many times, not because it comes from my lips, but because the problem of justice is eternal and the people have a deep sense of justice above and beyond the hairsplitting of jurisprudence. The people wield simple but implacable logic, in conflict with all that is absurd and contradictory. Furthermore, if there is in this world a people that utterly abhors favoritism and inequality, it is the Cuban people. To them, justice is symbolized by a maiden with a scale and a sword in her hands. Should she cower before one group and furiously wield that sword against another group, then to the people of Cuba the maiden of justice will seem nothing more than a prostitute brandishing a dagger. My logic is the simple logic of the people.

Let me tell you a story: Once upon a time there was a Republic. It had its Constitution, its laws, its freedoms, a President, a Congress and Courts of Law. Everyone could assemble, associate, speak and write with complete freedom. The people were not satisfied with the government officials at that time, but they had the power to elect new officials and only a few days remained before they would do so. Public opinion was respected and heeded and all problems of common interest were freely discussed. There were political parties, radio and television debates and forums and public meetings. The whole nation pulsated with enthusiasm. This people had suffered greatly and although it was unhappy, it longed to be happy and had a right to be happy. It had been deceived many times and it looked upon the past with real horror. This country innocently believed that such a past could not return; the people were proud of their love of freedom and they carried their heads high in the conviction that liberty would be respected as a sacred right. They felt confident that no one would dare commit the crime of violating their democratic institutions. They wanted a change for the better, aspired to progress; and they saw all this at hand. All their hope was in the future.

Poor country! One morning the citizens woke up dismayed; under the cover of night, while the people slept, the ghosts of the past had conspired and has seized the citizenry by its hands, its feet, and its neck. That grip, those claws were familiar: those jaws, those death-dealing scythes, those boots. No; it was no nightmare; it was a sad and terrible reality: a man named Fulgencio Batista had just perpetrated the appalling crime that no one had expected.

Then a humble citizen of that people, a citizen who wished to believe in the laws of the Republic, in the integrity of its judges, whom he had seen vent their fury against the underprivileged, searched through a Social Defense Code to see what punishment society prescribed for the author of such a coup, and he discovered the following:

‘Whosoever shall perpetrate any deed destined through violent means directly to change in whole or in part the Constitution of the State or the form of the established government shall incur a sentence of six to ten years imprisonment.

‘A sentence of three to ten years imprisonment will be imposed on the author of an act directed to promote an armed uprising against the Constitutional Powers of the State. The sentence increases from five to twenty years if the insurrection is carried out.

‘Whosoever shall perpetrate an act with the specific purpose of preventing, in whole or in part, even temporarily, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President, or the Supreme Court from exercising their constitutional functions will incur a sentence of from six to ten years imprisonment.

‘Whosoever shall attempt to impede or tamper with the normal course of general elections, will incur a sentence of from four to eight years imprisonment.

‘Whosoever shall introduce, publish, propagate or try to enforce in Cuba instructions, orders or decrees that tend … to promote the unobservance of laws in force, will incur a sentence of from two to six years imprisonment.

‘Whosoever shall assume command of troops, posts, fortresses, military camps, towns, warships, or military aircraft, without the authority to do so, or without express government orders, will incur a sentence of from five to ten years imprisonment.

‘A similar sentence will be passed upon anyone who usurps the exercise of a function held by the Constitution as properly belonging to the powers of State.’

Without telling anyone, Code in one hand and a deposition in the other, that citizen went to the old city building, that old building which housed the Court competent and under obligation to bring cause against and punish those responsible for this deed. He presented a writ denouncing the crimes and asking that Fulgencio Batista and his seventeen accomplices be sentenced to 108 years in prison as decreed by the Social Defense Code; considering also aggravating circumstances of secondary offense treachery, and acting under cover of night.

Days and months passed. What a disappointment! The accused remained unmolested: he strode up and down the country like a great lord and was called Honorable Sir and General: he removed and replaced judges at will. The very day the Courts opened, the criminal occupied the seat of honor in the midst of our august and venerable patriarchs of justice.

Once more the days and the months rolled by, the people wearied of mockery and abuses. There is a limit to tolerance! The struggle began against this man who was disregarding the law, who had usurped power by the use of violence against the will of the people, who was guilty of aggression against the established order, had tortured, murdered, imprisoned and prosecuted those who had taken up the struggle to defend the law and to restore freedom to the people.

Honorable Judges: I am that humble citizen who one day demanded in vain that the Courts punish the power-hungry men who had violated the law and torn our institutions to shreds. Now that it is I who am accused for attempting to overthrow this illegal regime and to restore the legitimate Constitution of the Republic, I am held incommunicado for 76 days and denied the right to speak to anyone, even to my son; between two heavy machine guns I am led through the city. I am transferred to this hospital to be tried secretly with the greatest severity; and the Prosecutor with the Code in his hand solemnly demands that I be sentenced to 26 years in prison.

You will answer that on the former occasion the Courts failed to act because force prevented them from doing so. Well then, confess, this time force will compel you to condemn me. The first time you were unable to punish the guilty; now you will be compelled to punish the innocent. The maiden of justice twice raped.

And so much talk to justify the unjustifiable, to explain the inexplicable and to reconcile the irreconcilable! The regime has reached the point of asserting that ‘Might makes right’ is the supreme law of the land. In other words, that using tanks and soldiers to take over the presidential palace, the national treasury, and the other government offices, and aiming guns at the heart of the people, entitles them to govern the people! The same argument the Nazis used when they occupied the countries of Europe and installed their puppet governments.

I heartily believe revolution to be the source of legal right; but the nocturnal armed assault of March 10th could never be considered a revolution. In everyday language, as José Ingenieros said, it is common to give the name of revolution to small disorders promoted by a group of dissatisfied persons in order to grab, from those in power, both the political sinecures and the economic advantages. The usual result is no more than a change of hands, the dividing up of jobs and benefits. This is not the criterion of a philosopher, as it cannot be that of a cultured man.

Leaving aside the problem of integral changes in the social system, not even on the surface of the public quagmire were we able to discern the slightest motion that could lessen the rampant putrefaction. The previous regime was guilty of petty politics, theft, pillage, and disrespect for human life; but the present regime has increased political skullduggery five-fold, pillage ten-fold, and a hundred-fold the lack of respect for human life.

It was known that Barriguilla had plundered and murdered, that he was a millionaire, that he owned in Havana a good many apartment houses, countless stock in foreign companies, fabulous accounts in American banks, that he agreed to divorce settlements to the tune of eighteen million pesos, that he was a frequent guest in the most lavishly expensive hotels for Yankee tycoons. But no one would ever think of Barriguilla as a revolutionary. Barriguilla is that sergeant of Weyler’s who assassinated twelve Cubans in Guatao. Batista’s men murdered seventy in Santiago de Cuba. De te fabula narratur.

Four political parties governed the country before the 10th of March: the Auténtico, Liberal, Democratic and Republican parties. Two days after the coup, the Republican party gave its support to the new rulers. A year had not yet passed before the Liberal and Democratic parties were again in power: Batista did not restore the Constitution, did not restore civil liberties, did not restore Congress, did not restore universal suffrage, did not restore in the last analysis any of the uprooted democratic institutions. But he did restore Verdeja, Guas Inclán, Salvito García Ramos, Anaya Murillo and the top hierarchy of the traditional government parties, the most corrupt, rapacious, reactionary and antediluvian elements in Cuban politics. So went the ‘revolution’ of Barriguilla!.

Lacking even the most elementary revolutionary content, Batista’s regime represents in every respect a 20 year regression for Cuba. Batista’s regime has exacted a high price from all of us, but primarily from the humble classes which are suffering hunger and misery. Meanwhile the dictatorship has laid waste the nation with commotion, ineptitude and anguish, and now engages in the most loathsome forms of ruthless politics, concocting formula after formula to perpetuate itself in power, even if over a stack of corpses and a sea of blood.

Batista’s regime has not set in motion a single nationwide program of betterment for the people. Batista delivered himself into the hands of the great financial interests. Little else could be expected from a man of his mentality – utterly devoid as he is of ideals and of principles, and utterly lacking the faith, confidence and support of the masses. His regime merely brought with it a change of hands and a redistribution of the loot among a new group of friends, relatives, accomplices and parasitic hangers-on that constitute the political retinue of the Dictator. What great shame the people have been forced to endure so that a small group of egoists, altogether indifferent to the needs of their homeland, may find in public life an easy and comfortable modus vivendi.

How right Eduardo Chibás was in his last radio speech, when he said that Batista was encouraging the return of the colonels, castor oil and the law of the fugitive! Immediately after March 10th, Cubans again began to witness acts of veritable vandalism which they had thought banished forever from their nation. There was an unprecedented attack on a cultural institution: a radio station was stormed by the thugs of the SIM, together with the young hoodlums of the PAU, while broadcasting the ‘University of the Air’ program. And there was the case of the journalist Mario Kuchilán, dragged from his home in the middle of the night and bestially tortured until he was nearly unconscious. There was the murder of the student Rubén Batista and the criminal volleys fired at a peaceful student demonstration next to the wall where Spanish volunteers shot the medical students in 1871. And many cases such as that of Dr. García Bárcena, where right in the courtrooms men have coughed up blood because of the barbaric tortures practiced upon them by the repressive security forces. I will not enumerate the hundreds of cases where groups of citizens have been brutally clubbed – men, women, children and the aged. All of this was being done even before July 26th. Since then, as everyone knows, even Cardinal Arteaga himself was not spared such treatment. Everybody knows he was a victim of repressive agents. According to the official story, he fell prey to a ‘band of thieves’. For once the regime told the truth. For what else is this regime? …

People have just contemplated with horror the case of the journalist who was kidnapped and subjected to torture by fire for twenty days. Each new case brings forth evidence of unheard-of effrontery, of immense hypocrisy: the cowardice of those who shirk responsibility and invariably blame the enemies of the regime. Governmental tactics enviable only by the worst gangster mobs. Even the Nazi criminals were never so cowardly. Hitler assumed responsibility for the massacres of June 30, 1934, stating that for 24 hours he himself had been the German Supreme Court; the henchmen of this dictatorship which defies all comparison because of its baseness, maliciousness and cowardice, kidnap, torture, murder and then loathsomely put the blame on the adversaries of the regime. Typical tactics of Sergeant Barriguilla!

Not once in all the cases I have mentioned, Honorable Judges, have the agents responsible for these crimes been brought to Court to be tried for them. How is this? Was this not to be the regime of public order, peace and respect for human life?

I have related all this in order to ask you now: Can this state of affairs be called a revolution, capable of formulating law and establishing rights? Is it or is it not legitimate to struggle against this regime? And must there not be a high degree of corruption in the courts of law when these courts imprison citizens who try to rid the country of so much infamy?

Cuba is suffering from a cruel and base despotism. You are well aware that resistance to despots is legitimate. This is a universally recognized principle and our 1940 Constitution expressly makes it a sacred right, in the second paragraph of Article 40: ‘It is legitimate to use adequate resistance to protect previously granted individual rights.’ And even if this prerogative had not been provided by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is a consideration without which one cannot conceive of the existence of a democratic collectivity. Professor Infiesta, in his book on Constitutional Law, differentiates between the political and legal constitutions, and states: ‘Sometimes the Legal Constitution includes constitutional principles which, even without being so classified, would be equally binding solely on the basis of the people’s consent, for example, the principle of majority rule or representation in our democracies.’ The right of insurrection in the face of tyranny is one such principle, and whether or not it be included in the Legal Constitution, it is always binding within a democratic society. The presentation of such a case to a high court is one of the most interesting problems of general law. Duguit has said in his Treatise on Constitutional Law: ‘If an insurrection fails, no court will dare to rule that this unsuccessful insurrection was technically no conspiracy, no transgression against the security of the State, inasmuch as, the government being tyrannical, the intention to overthrow it was legitimate.’ But please take note: Duguit does not state, ‘the court ought not to rule.’ He says, ‘no court will dare to rule.’ More explicitly, he means that no court will dare, that no court will have enough courage to do so, under a tyranny. If the court is courageous and does its duty, then yes, it will dare.

Recently there has been a loud controversy concerning the 1940 Constitution. The Court of Social and Constitutional Rights ruled against it in favor of the so-called Statutes. Nevertheless, Honorable Judges, I maintain that the 1940 Constitution is still in force. My statement may seem absurd and extemporaneous to you. But do not be surprised. It is I who am astonished that a court of law should have attempted to deal a death blow to the legitimate Constitution of the Republic. Adhering strictly to facts, truth and reason – as I have done all along – I will prove what I have just stated. The Court of Social and Constitutional Rights was instituted according to Article 172 of the 1940 Constitution, and the supplementary Act of May 31, 1949. These laws, in virtue of which the Court was created, granted it, insofar as problems of unconstitutionality are concerned, a specific and clearly defined area of legal competence: to rule in all matters of appeals claiming the unconstitutionality of laws, legal decrees, resolutions, or acts that deny, diminish, restrain or adulterate the constitutional rights and privileges or that jeopardize the operations of State agencies. Article 194 established very clearly the following: ‘All judges and courts are under the obligation to find solutions to conflicts between the Constitution and the existing laws in accordance with the principle that the former shall always prevail over the latter.’ Therefore, according to the laws that created it, the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights should always rule in favor of the Constitution. When this Court caused the Statutes to prevail above the Constitution of the Republic, it completely overstepped its boundaries and its established field of competence, thereby rendering a decision which is legally null and void. Furthermore, the decision itself is absurd, and absurdities have no validity in law nor in fact, not even from a metaphysical point of view. No matter how venerable a court may be, it cannot assert that circles are square or, what amounts to the same thing, that the grotesque offspring of the April 4th Statutes should be considered the official Constitution of a State.

The Constitution is understood to be the basic and supreme law of the nation, to define the country’s political structure, regulate the functioning of its government agencies, and determine the limits of their activities. It must be stable, enduring and, to a certain extent, inflexible. The Statutes fulfill none of these qualifications. To begin with, they harbor a monstrous, shameless, and brazen contradiction in regard to the most vital aspect of all: the integration of the Republican structure and the principle of national sovereignty. Article 1 reads: ‘Cuba is a sovereign and independent State constituted as a democratic Republic.’ Article 2 reads: ‘Sovereignty resides in the will of the people, and all powers derive from this source.’ But then comes Article 118, which reads: ‘The President will be nominated by the Cabinet.’ So it is not the people who choose the President, but rather the Cabinet. And who chooses the Cabinet? Article 120, section 13: ‘The President will be authorized to nominate and reappoint the members of the Cabinet and to replace them when occasion arises.’ So, after all, who nominates whom? Is this not the classical old problem of the chicken and the egg that no one has ever been able to solve?

One day eighteen hoodlums got together. Their plan was to assault the Republic and loot its 350 million pesos annual budget. Behind peoples’ backs and with great treachery, they succeeded in their purpose. ‘Now what do we do next?’ they wondered. One of them said to the rest: ‘You name me Prime Minister, and I’ll make you generals.’ When this was done, he rounded up a group of 20 men and told them: ‘I will make you my Cabinet if you make me President.’ In this way they named each other generals, ministers and president, and then took over the treasury and the Republic.

What is more, it was not simply a matter of usurping sovereignty at a given moment in order to name a Cabinet, Generals and a President. This man ascribed to himself, through these Statutes, not only absolute control of the nation, but also the power of life and death over every citizen – control, in fact, over the very existence of the nation. Because of this, I maintain that the position of the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights is not only treacherous, vile, cowardly and repugnant, but also absurd.

The Statutes contain an article which has not received much attention, but which gives us the key to this situation and is the one from which we shall derive decisive conclusions. I refer specifically to the modifying clause included in Article 257, which reads: ‘This constitutional law is open to reform by the Cabinet with a two-thirds quorum vote.’ This is where mockery reaches its climax. Not only did they exercise sovereignty in order to impose a Constitution upon a people without that people’s consent, and to install a regime which concentrates all power in their own hands, but also, through Article 257, they assume the most essential attribute of sovereignty: the power to change the Basic and Supreme Law of the Land. And they have already changed it several times since March 10th. Yet, with the greatest gall, they assert in Article 2 that sovereignty resides in the will of the people and that the people are the source of all power. Since these changes may be brought about by a vote of two-thirds of the Cabinet and the Cabinet is named by the President, then the right to make and break Cuba is in the hands of one man, a man who is, furthermore, the most unworthy of all the creatures ever to be born in this land. Was this then accepted by the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights? And is all that derives from it valid and legal? Very well, you shall see what was accepted: ‘This constitutional law is open to reform by the Cabinet with a two-thirds quorum vote.’ Such a power recognizes no limits. Under its aegis, any article, any chapter, any section, even the whole law may be modified. For example, Article 1, which I have just mentioned, says that Cuba is a sovereign and independent State constituted as a democratic Republic, ‘although today it is in fact a bloody dictatorship.’ Article 3 reads: ‘The national boundaries include the island of Cuba, the Isle of Pines, and the neighboring keys …’ and so on. Batista and his Cabinet under the provisions of Article 257 can modify all these other articles. They can say that Cuba is no longer a Republic but a hereditary monarchy and he, Batista, can anoint himself king. He can dismember the national territory and sell a province to a foreign country as Napoleon did with Louisiana. He may suspend the right to life itself, and like Herod, order the decapitation of newborn children. All these measures would be legal and you would have to incarcerate all those who opposed them, just as you now intend to do with me. I have put forth extreme examples to show how sad and humiliating our present situation is. To think that all these absolute powers are in the hands of men truly capable of selling our country along with all its citizens!

As the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights has accepted this state of affairs, what more are they waiting for? They may as well hang up their judicial robes. It is a fundamental principle of general law that there can be no constitutional status where the constitutional and legislative powers reside in the same body. When the Cabinet makes the laws, the decrees and the rules – and at the same time has the power to change the Constitution in a moment of time – then I ask you: why do we need a Court of Social and Constitutional Rights? The ruling in favor of this Statute is irrational, inconceivable, illogical and totally contrary to the Republican laws that you, Honorable Judges, swore to uphold. When the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights supported Batista’s Statutes against the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land was not abolished but rather the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights placed itself outside the Constitution, renounced its autonomy and committed legal suicide. May it rest in peace!

The right to rebel, established in Article 40 of the Constitution, is still valid. Was it established to function while the Republic was enjoying normal conditions? No. This provision is to the Constitution what a lifeboat is to a ship at sea. The lifeboat is only launched when the ship has been torpedoed by enemies laying wait along its course. With our Constitution betrayed and the people deprived of all their prerogatives, there was only one way open: one right which no power may abolish. The right to resist oppression and injustice. If any doubt remains, there is an article of the Social Defense Code which the Honorable Prosecutor would have done well not to forget. It reads, and I quote: ‘The appointed or elected government authorities that fail to resist sedition with all available means will be liable to a sentence of interdiction of from six to eight years.’ The judges of our nation were under the obligation to resist Batista’s treacherous military coup of the 10th of March. It is understandable that when no one has observed the law and when nobody else has done his duty, those who have observed the law and have done their duty should be sent to prison.

You will not be able to deny that the regime forced upon the nation is unworthy of Cuba’s history. In his book, The Spirit of Laws, which is the foundation of the modern division of governmental power, Montesquieu makes a distinction between three types of government according to their basic nature:

‘The Republican form wherein the whole people or a portion thereof has sovereign power; the Monarchical form where only one man governs, but in accordance with fixed and well-defined laws; and the Despotic form where one man without regard for laws nor rules acts as he pleases, regarding only his own will or whim.’ And then he adds: ‘A man whose five senses constantly tell him that he is everything and that the rest of humanity is nothing is bound to be lazy, ignorant and sensuous.’ ‘As virtue is necessary to democracy, and honor to a monarchy, fear is of the essence to a despotic regime, where virtue is not needed and honor would be dangerous.’

The right of rebellion against tyranny, Honorable Judges, has been recognized from the most ancient times to the present day by men of all creeds, ideas and doctrines.

It was so in the theocratic monarchies of remote antiquity. In China it was almost a constitutional principle that when a king governed rudely and despotically he should be deposed and replaced by a virtuous prince.

The philosophers of ancient India upheld the principle of active resistance to arbitrary authority. They justified revolution and very often put their theories into practice. One of their spiritual leaders used to say that ‘an opinion held by the majority is stronger than the king himself. A rope woven of many strands is strong enough to hold a lion.’

The city states of Greece and republican Rome not only admitted, but defended the meting-out of violent death to tyrants.

In the Middle Ages, John Salisbury in his Book of the Statesman says that when a prince does not govern according to law and degenerates into a tyrant, violent overthrow is legitimate and justifiable. He recommends for tyrants the dagger rather than poison.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, rejects the doctrine of tyrannicide, and yet upholds the thesis that tyrants should be overthrown by the people.

Martin Luther proclaimed that when a government degenerates into a tyranny that violates the laws, its subjects are released from their obligations to obey. His disciple, Philippe Melanchton, upholds the right of resistance when governments become despotic. Calvin, the outstanding thinker of the Reformation with regard to political ideas, postulates that people are entitled to take up arms to oppose any usurpation.

No less a man that Juan Mariana, a Spanish Jesuit during the reign of Philip II, asserts in his book, De Rege et Regis Institutione, that when a governor usurps power, or even if he were elected, when he governs in a tyrannical manner it is licit for a private citizen to exercise tyrannicide, either directly or through subterfuge with the least possible disturbance.

The French writer, François Hotman, maintained that between the government and its subjects there is a bond or contract, and that the people may rise in rebellion against the tyranny of government when the latter violates that pact.

About the same time, a booklet – which came to be widely read – appeared under the title Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, and it was signed with the pseudonym Stephanus Junius Brutus. It openly declared that resistance to governments is legitimate when rulers oppress the people and that it is the duty of Honorable Judges to lead the struggle.

The Scottish reformers John Knox and John Poynet upheld the same points of view. And, in the most important book of that movement, George Buchanan stated that if a government achieved power without taking into account the consent of the people, or if a government rules their destiny in an unjust or arbitrary fashion, then that government becomes a tyranny and can be divested of power or, in a final recourse, its leaders can be put to death.

John Althus, a German jurist of the early 17th century, stated in his Treatise on Politics that sovereignty as the supreme authority of the State is born from the voluntary concourse of all its members; that governmental authority stems from the people and that its unjust, illegal or tyrannical function exempts them from the duty of obedience and justifies resistance or rebellion.

Thus far, Honorable Judges, I have mentioned examples from antiquity, from the Middle Ages, and from the beginnings of our times. I selected these examples from writers of all creeds. What is more, you can see that the right to rebellion is at the very root of Cuba’s existence as a nation. By virtue of it you are today able to appear in the robes of Cuban Judges. Would it be that those garments really served the cause of justice!

It is well known that in England during the 17th century two kings, Charles I and James II, were dethroned for despotism. These actions coincided with the birth of liberal political philosophy and provided the ideological base for a new social class, which was then struggling to break the bonds of feudalism. Against divine right autocracies, this new philosophy upheld the principle of the social contract and of the consent of the governed, and constituted the foundation of the English Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1775 and the French Revolution of 1789. These great revolutionary events ushered in the liberation of the Spanish colonies in the New World – the final link in that chain being broken by Cuba. The new philosophy nurtured our own political ideas and helped us to evolve our Constitutions, from the Constitution of Guáimaro up to the Constitution of 1940. The latter was influenced by the socialist currents of our time; the principle of the social function of property and of man’s inalienable right to a decent living were built into it, although large vested interests have prevented fully enforcing those rights.

The right of insurrection against tyranny then underwent its final consecration and became a fundamental tenet of political liberty.

As far back as 1649, John Milton wrote that political power lies with the people, who can enthrone and dethrone kings and have the duty of overthrowing tyrants.

John Locke, in his essay on government, maintained that when the natural rights of man are violated, the people have the right and the duty to alter or abolish the government. ‘The only remedy against unauthorized force is opposition to it by force.’

Jean-Jacques Rousseau said with great eloquence in his Social Contract:

‘While a people sees itself forced to obey and obeys, it does well; but as soon as it can shake off the yoke and shakes it off, it does better, recovering its liberty through the use of the very right that has been taken away from it.’ ‘The strongest man is never strong enough to be master forever, unless he converts force into right and obedience into duty. Force is a physical power; I do not see what morality one may derive from its use. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; at the very least, it is an act of prudence. In what sense should this be called a duty?’ ‘To renounce freedom is to renounce one’s status as a man, to renounce one’s human rights, including one’s duties. There is no possible compensation for renouncing everything. Total renunciation is incompatible with the nature of man and to take away all free will is to take away all morality of conduct. In short, it is vain and contradictory to stipulate on the one hand an absolute authority and on the other an unlimited obedience …’

Thomas Paine said that ‘one just man deserves more respect than a rogue with a crown.’

The people’s right to rebel has been opposed only by reactionaries like that clergyman of Virginia, Jonathan Boucher, who said: ‘The right to rebel is a censurable doctrine derived from Lucifer, the father of rebellions.’

The Declaration of Independence of the Congress of Philadelphia, on July 4th, 1776, consecrated this right in a beautiful paragraph which reads:

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.’

The famous French Declaration of the Rights of Man willed this principle to the coming generations:

‘When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for them the most sacred of rights and the most imperative of duties.’ ‘When a person seizes sovereignty, he should be condemned to death by free men.’

I believe I have sufficiently justified my point of view. I have called forth more reasons than the Honorable Prosecutor called forth to ask that I be condemned to 26 years in prison. All these reasons support men who struggle for the freedom and happiness of the people. None support those who oppress the people, revile them, and rob them heartlessly. Therefore I have been able to call forth many reasons and he could not adduce even one. How can Batista’s presence in power be justified when he gained it against the will of the people and by violating the laws of the Republic through the use of treachery and force? How could anyone call legitimate a regime of blood, oppression and ignominy? How could anyone call revolutionary a regime which has gathered the most backward men, methods and ideas of public life around it? How can anyone consider legally valid the high treason of a Court whose duty was to defend the Constitution? With what right do the Courts send to prison citizens who have tried to redeem their country by giving their own blood, their own lives? All this is monstrous to the eyes of the nation and to the principles of true justice!

Still there is one argument more powerful than all the others. We are Cubans and to be Cuban implies a duty; not to fulfill that duty is a crime, is treason. We are proud of the history of our country; we learned it in school and have grown up hearing of freedom, justice and human rights. We were taught to venerate the glorious example of our heroes and martyrs. Céspedes, Agramonte, Maceo, Gómez and Martí were the first names engraved in our minds. We were taught that the Titan once said that liberty is not begged for but won with the blade of a machete. We were taught that for the guidance of Cuba’s free citizens, the Apostle wrote in his book The Golden Age: ‘The man who abides by unjust laws and permits any man to trample and mistreat the country in which he was born is not an honorable man … In the world there must be a certain degree of honor just as there must be a certain amount of light. When there are many men without honor, there are always others who bear in themselves the honor of many men. These are the men who rebel with great force against those who steal the people’s freedom, that is to say, against those who steal honor itself. In those men thousands more are contained, an entire people is contained, human dignity is contained …’ We were taught that the 10th of October and the 24th of February are glorious anniversaries of national rejoicing because they mark days on which Cubans rebelled against the yoke of infamous tyranny. We were taught to cherish and defend the beloved flag of the lone star, and to sing every afternoon the verses of our National Anthem: ‘To live in chains is to live in disgrace and in opprobrium,’ and ‘to die for one’s homeland is to live forever!’ All this we learned and will never forget, even though today in our land there is murder and prison for the men who practice the ideas taught to them since the cradle. We were born in a free country that our parents bequeathed to us, and the Island will first sink into the sea before we consent to be the slaves of anyone.

It seemed that the Apostle would die during his Centennial. It seemed that his memory would be extinguished forever. So great was the affront! But he is alive; he has not died. His people are rebellious. His people are worthy. His people are faithful to his memory. There are Cubans who have fallen defending his doctrines. There are young men who in magnificent selflessness came to die beside his tomb, giving their blood and their lives so that he could keep on living in the heart of his nation. Cuba, what would have become of you had you let your Apostle die?

I come to the close of my defense plea but I will not end it as lawyers usually do, asking that the accused be freed. I cannot ask freedom for myself while my comrades are already suffering in the ignominious prison of the Isle of Pines. Send me there to join them and to share their fate. It is understandable that honest men should be dead or in prison in a Republic where the President is a criminal and a thief.

To you, Honorable Judges, my sincere gratitude for having allowed me to express myself free from contemptible restrictions. I hold no bitterness towards you, I recognize that in certain aspects you have been humane, and I know that the Chief Judge of this Court, a man of impeccable private life, cannot disguise his repugnance at the current state of affairs that compels him to dictate unjust decisions. Still, a more serious problem remains for the Court of Appeals: the indictments arising from the murders of seventy men, that is to say, the greatest massacre we have ever known. The guilty continue at liberty and with weapons in their hands – weapons which continually threaten the lives of all citizens. If all the weight of the law does not fall upon the guilty because of cowardice or because of domination of the courts, and if then all the judges do not resign, I pity your honor. And I regret the unprecedented shame that will fall upon the Judicial Power.

I know that imprisonment will be harder for me than it has ever been for anyone, filled with cowardly threats and hideous cruelty. But I do not fear prison, as I do not fear the fury of the miserable tyrant who took the lives of 70 of my comrades. Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.

The Movement and the Workers

By C. Van Lydegraf
Second edition, May 1972

About the second edition:

By 1969 “The Movement” had become a real force with its own identity. And just because there was promise of success in the air, the new revolutionaries were attacked by a lot of people who had supposed that they would be the ones to head up the revolution.

“The Movement and the Workers” was written at that time. It welcomed the new activists but it also tried to examine failings and mistakes and wrong ideas in order to get at sources and causes. It is not a law of history that we endlessly repeat every old mistake.

No modern imperialist country has yet produced a mass revolutionary force that is effective and enduring. This is what makes critical examination of our own understanding and performance such a necessity. Once we can get a clear idea about what is right and what is wrong in our efforts we will already be well on the way to realizing our great potential as a strategic force.

Our problem is how to deal with all the ways that the US empire still uses to control our lives and have its way with us so that it can go on looting and oppressing, even if only on a shrinking portion of the globe.

If the piece were being written now, in May of 1972 rather than in early 1969, I would place less emphasis on overall economic demands and more on collective ways of living and resisting. People should struggle to re-appropriate the loot of empire however they can – by strikes or whatever means.

But this should be done for survival and for revolution; we get nowhere if we only compete for a lot of junk commodities. Unions don’t make workers into a revolutionary class – for that we have to live, think, and fight collectively. Income beyond survival needs and our special skill can be used to build the revolution and to sabotage the evil works of the empire. It’s the only way to live purposefully and joyfully.
* * * * *

At the end of the original text, a new section has been added with comments on events since the time of the first printing.

A revolutionary is not one who becomes revolutionary with onset of the revolution, but one who defends the principles and slogans of the revolution when reaction is most violent and when liberals and democrats vacillate to the greatest degree…
– V.I. Lenin

THE MOVEMENT AND THE WORKERS – BREAKING THROUGH THE SYSTEM FIX

In the 19th century Karl Marx referred to workers as the grave-diggers of capitalism. In the second half of the 20th century some people are asking whether the modern industrial workers are not more likely to bury the revolution than make it.

Movement people are bombarded with contradictory contentions as to the present and future role of these workers and the Establishment-oriented trade unions.

In such political essays, workers are usually presented as purely economic creatures. They may be automated and educated, but for all that they are still pictured as being moved exclusively by calculations of selfish material gain. Robinson Crusoes all, though surrounded by push-buttons.

Assuming that the “affluent society” will go on and on, pessimists write off workers as hopeless. They think that they will have to find someone other than workers to make the revolution – or there won’t be one.

Ritualists from older times rush to “defend” the workers’ good name and give us impassioned assurance that the workers are still programmed for revolution by the laws of political economy. Only there have been delays in the action.

Thus, choice is apparently limited either to giving up or placing hope in prayer-like incantations which have lost their magic. It is no wonder that a new generation of rebels seeks to find a new course. This impulse grows into a passion after exposure to the cowardice, treachery, and shabby maneuvering exhibited by many leaders once regarded as revolutionary communists. Such was the role of the Khrushchev group in the Soviet Union and similar groups in other places including the US.

Most of the new activists were completely alienated from the traditional left. There was at first not enough contact with, or understanding of, the continuing revolutionary struggle in China and other countries to offset these negative reactions. The new movements were temporarily cut off from any close contact with a scientific analysis of revolutionary history.

Naturally enough, Cuba became the Mecca and Che Guevara the prophet of the activists, adding thereby a touch of Latin romance and more than a little of anarchism and military syndicalism. Cuban experience seemed to confirm the idea that a liberation army can do without a party: the guerrilla army leads the revolution to victory without much support from the working class. Regis Debray later converted this speculation into an entire system in his book, Revolution in the Revolution. But puffing it up only makes it more visible and less convincing.

Ours is a society developed and structured in quite a different way than pre-revolutionary Cuba, even if we leave aside the matter of whether Debray does not misread Cuban experience.

So, repelled by deserters and sectarian mini-groups, the new movements set to house-cleaning. Everything went, garbage, furniture, heirlooms. This leaves most old-generation-left veterans feeling like a motherless child, grudging their loss and calling up old memories. But what is important is that the way is now open for new solutions to correct old mistakes and failures.

But not yet having adequate solutions, the new generation takes to borrowing. The result is the damndest eclectic mish-mash that ever was. It is nothing to be alarmed about. All great revolutionary break-throughs have emerged in fierce conflict with obsolete ideas.

The new collection draws upon Fidel and Che heavily, but also from classic Marxism-Leninism. From anarchism and existentialism and pragmatism it derives pure activism. It takes something from US agrarian populism. It often does all this without knowledge of original sources or consideration of historical circumstances. The whole is seasoned with dashes of psychedelia, sex, and pot.

In the hot-house climate of the movement absurd things blossom in a flash. But so widespread is the growth of the revolutionary struggle, that in the end its basic ideas penetrate everywhere. Its leaders from Marx to Mao and Ho become universally known. Through all the muddle the movement grows and painfully solves problems one after the other.

A clear example is the growth of the Black Panther Party and the political impact of its spokesmen, notably Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale, and Eldridge Cleaver, but including others. There are now, for the first time since the murder of Malcolm X, leaders who promise to make their own revolutionary understanding and policy meaningful in the lives of their people – and this is a most decisive and strategic constituency. It has been many years since any organization or party has been able to do this. Which makes this a major political event for our country.

If the movement is going to be able to join with white workers to produce our own leap forward, it will first have to work hard to relate to actual fact and not to some dream-world.

Workers individually, as a class, and as part of the entire society are not moved by economics alone. They are structured into the system in a thousand ways just as “middle class” students are. Not in the same roles, but quite as effectively.

What is more, students and intellectuals are not necessarily and entirely middle class. Manual and mental labor are social divisions of labor, but not economic classes as such. Most white collar workers, including PhDs, sell labor power to the boss just like any dishwasher or carpenter and sometimes on worse terms. At the same time, many skilled jobs require workers who are educated. Students and intellectuals who do not make it into status jobs usually end up in the ranks of the workers.

It IS a bit easier to expose the system in the midst of a shattering economic crisis. But it is never easy to radicalize workers. It was not easy even in 1933-35. The process of mass radicalization began among the 17 million unemployed who had no work and who were not all of working class origin to start with. It took some time and enormous effort; it was not spontaneous. Class and long range goals, and political, social, and moral issues all figured in the movement.

The capacity for commitment, sacrifice heroism and comradeship, willingness to put common good ahead of selfish interests – these traits are not a monopoly of young intellectuals. And there is something to be said for the disciplined collective effort and organization which workers are able to produce.

No one can expect the new left to know all these things instantly. But longtime “Marxists” who ignore BASIC Marxism while quoting Marx in the most superior accents imaginable – they have no excuse. They offer Marxism to the new movements in the sorriest condition possible.

Some young people (among them Greg Calvert, Carl Davidson who have written in New Left Notes and in the Guardian) have picked up on this mangled Marxism uncritically. The result is that they deny even some obvious facts such as the effects of bribery and corruption of important parts of the working class through their sharing in a part of the loot of imperialism. On the part of the older opportunists and sectarians (who invented it) this denial is outright falsification of Marx and Lenin. It is also a less than honest attempt to gain friends in labor by flattery and overlooking shortcomings. The young, in this case, are guilty of no more than thoughtlessly aping their elders.

If the new left essayists will take the time to read more carefully the Communist Manifesto and some of Lenin, that will be a very great gain for the movement.

Competition among workers, sectional and selfish interests, short-term favors, plus social pressure and national and racial chauvinism have quite often diverted various groups of workers, and even entire national contingents, from a revolutionary role to one that is either passive or reactionary in its effect. The US imperialists of today have a very great mass of wealth from super-profiteering and they have had a rather lengthy period of relative prosperity in which to manipulate various sections of the population.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that communists (the Marxists of a century ago) are those who concern themselves with the overall class interests of the workers and not just some craft or national sector, and with the future, not just a momentary selfish advantage.

In the 1920s Lenin, writing about Europe and North America in the book Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder, stated, “…There (in the West), the craft-union, narrow-minded, selfish, unfeeling covetous, petty-bourgeois ‘labor aristocracy’ imperialistically-minded, and bribed and corrupted by imperialism, represents a much stronger stratum than in our country.” Revolutions are made by facing problems, not by denying that they exist. Taking state power is a big job, still in the future. Meanwhile, things must be done to open the way. Workers are still the prime movers and shakers at the social base – calling up this force is the generative act which shapes the future – motivity is its product.

NEW BEGINNINGS – ASSORTED HANGUPS

The new movements did not stop with repudiation of reformist and timid spokesmen who had presided over the decline of the left. The reactionary labor bureaucracy of the AFL-CIO and other parts of the system’s liberal front also came under heavy fire. The NAACP monopoly of speaking for all Negroes was shattered by young and militant Blacks. Within the movements, high-handed bureaucratic ways were replaced by the new-style near-anarchy of “participatory democracy.”

This political storm gathered and took shape with the US capitalist economy as “healthy” as it ever gets and with its military and diplomatic strength at an all time peak. But for all its might, the US experienced major military and policy defeats one after another in China, Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam.

This exposure of the inner weakness of the US colossus was a major event in the growth and education of the new left. The political action which brings this lesson home through militant tactics of confrontation and de-sanctification is a very great achievement. Another strong point of the new actionists is the fact that, having seen through the deceptions of imperialism, they take the side of the future, renouncing prospects of elite and privileged careers.

The movements were repelled by opportunist misuse of logic and dialectic to cover failure and cowardice. Being unready to detect and correct bad theory, they turned to the concept of direct action. But without the orientation which comes from scientific theory, bold plans and daring deeds can cover underlying frustration and feelings of impotency when confronted by a powerful enemy. In these circumstances, even earnest efforts to cope with social problems and class struggle easily turn into phantasmagoria.

Recently a systematic politics of frustration has been patched together and offered as a “new stage,” usually called neo-capitalism. What is important here is not the authors’ intentions or the froth of the theoretics, but its content and effect.

The aimlessness of pure direct-action and the passivity of dropping out is to be “improved” by substituting a more sophisticated “neo-Marxism” no. 1001. The common starting point of these efforts is to declare that imperialism is not essential to US capitalism and that the owners themselves will soon discard it as outmoded and too crude. The arms race will soon fade away for the same reason.

This purely imaginary elimination of imperialism is asserted as if it were obvious fact without need of proof or argument. To help the wish pass as an idea, it is added that by planned obsolescence and “consumerism” (the selling of junk commodities, the expansion of credit) the system can get by nicely with an expanded home market. All the fuss and bother of exporting capital and keeping up the massive and costly military establishment is not necessary.

The source of this glittering vision of transfiguration seems to be a hope of getting around the presumed desertion of the revolution by the workers. Now the contradictions and consequences of imperialism may be dealt with apart from basic economics, state power, and revolution.

Having started with purely economic man, the theorists have now dispensed with basic economics entirely. Solutions may be looked for in juggling books, planning, sociology, advertising, psychology, media, and tactics. Here the “new working class” – that is the graduate student and others with special training and skills – can take care of everything. Marx’s proletarian is still welcome to the revolution, but only as a guest; no longer is he the source of power.

The system will no longer need nasty wars or the genocide of Blacks, Browns, Reds, much less fellow Whites. Internationalism becomes a highly moral pleasure, self-satisfying and purging and not calling for anyone to shed blood in obsolete wars of liberation.

The self-contained US can easily be re-structured. There can be a rational society dwelling amid peace and luxury while crass materiality is scorned. Since only the imperialists benefit from the obsolete empire, while workers remain pure, (even though they gave up their own class revolution to chase after commodities) communism can come at once. There might even be left over things for generous distribution to poor and undeveloped countries.

The new theorists do not examine these absurdities which they have brought into the world. They do not indicate awareness of them nor offer explanations. They are content that they have exorcised the innermost being of US capitalism by officially declaring imperialism to be no more than a ghost. It is exhilarating to think of confronting a ruling power reduced to a body of zombies without class aims. Such is the content of “neo-capitalism.” But the achievements of the new left, such as its withering criticism of the life – and the weaknesses of the old left – are not strengthened by such fantasy.

It is also true that the historic left had a genuinely positive side – this will have its impact as the record is better understood. But doctrinaire solutions of 20 or 30 years standing, combined with inability to define, much less resolve, new facts and problems, or relate to new people with new ways, can in no way further the cause of Marxism or social change and revolution. There is nothing to teach unless we are first willing to learn.

The new activists are wrong in a number of things, but the contempt which they express for distorted Marxism and bad advice is highly justified and valuable. Marxists within the movement, both the old and the young, have to be able to help work out genuine solutions to problems rather than hawk useless cure-alls. Action is aimless without the purposefulness which comes from theory. But theory that is not integrated with the action is lifeless and turns into just another obstacle, Only the combination of theory derived from practice and practice enlightened by theory can create that basic orientation which is urgently needed by the entire movement, but which is achieved so painfully and with so many false turns.

THE ROOTS OF EMPIRE AND THE CRISIS IN OUR LIVES

Imperialism as a full blown stage in our history dates from about the turn of the century, but its roots go back to the earliest colonizers.

The first Europeans to set up enclaves on the Atlantic seaboard built their plantations and businesses by taking advantage of refugees from political and religious persecution and so availed themselves of indentured servants and convict labor. The conditions of these workers were very near to those of outright slavery, which itself was quickly established in the middle and southern colonies with the importation of Black slaves from Africa. The land for these colonial free enterprises was “granted” by the King of England, but in fact it was seized by driving off and exterminating the native red Indians.

Many northern as well as southern family fortunes of the founding fathers rested on one or more of the three corners of colonial trade: sailing sugar and molasses to New England, rum, spirits, and tobacco to Europe, slaves from Africa to the West Indies and the Southern colonies, and repeat. After the invention of the cotton gin, the textile industry was worked into the scheme, with the middle and southern Atlantic coast turning to slave breeding for the middle and western slave states as the soil was exhausted in the east. To serve this new branch of the economy, the slave trade from Africa was closed out with great humanitarian ceremonies.

Later a vast part of the present territory of the US was “purchased” from France, which had seized title by sending canoe expeditions down the Mississippi and up its western branches. Additional wars were cooked up to clear out the various Indian tribes such as the Cheyenne, Sioux, Apache, Nez Perce from the west generally, and the nation of Mexico from Texas, the Southwest and California. Alaska, which had been stolen by agents of the Russian Tsar, was purchased from that ruler without regard to the Indian, Aleut, and Eskimo inhabitants. Hawaii was annexed by threats and the British were pushed out of the Oregon Territory.

Unequal treaties were ceremonially signed with the Indians remaining after the wars, giving them empty promises in return for real land and resources. In sum, the foundation of all the special advantages, the productive “genius,” and the exceptional wealth of the USA commences with the plain and simple seizure by force of arms and genocide of the common property and lives of the original Americans. It rests equally upon the labor and life blood of millions of Black slaves.

The vision of the shining, clean young-giant of a nation built by the sweat and toil of free farmers on free-land and free workers in free enterprise is one of the original big lies. For generations going back to middle age European feudalism, the Christian churches and the earliest merchants, traders, shop keepers, and manufacturers have busily taught contempt for the rights and the lives of the dark-skinned heathen whom they regard as less than human.

The attitudes and habits of imperial white supremacy came with the first settlers. They continued in effect right through the war of independence, when we exercised our right of revolution (in the name of all mankind). We did not recognize the crimes of colonizing as crimes at all; most people justified the practice, and many actively pushed expansion to the west. All our schools still teach the conquest of the west as a mark of national greatness. In our schools, not only African-American history is butchered; so is our entire history, especially that of labor.

Only with the abolitionists and John Brown is there a small break with the rationale of slavery and genocide, only then does it seem possible that the words of the Declaration of Independence may one day be taken seriously by the people and used against the exploiters and oppressors. This is the positive side of our history – but we have still not found it possible to do what is needed to eliminate the slave-making and colonizing nature of our society. John Brown’s unfulfilled goal is at the heart of the contemporary crisis.

It is true that most people in the 1840-1850 decade owned no slaves, drew no income directly from the plantations, hunted down no fugitives. Many were quite as free, in their own opinion, from guilt in the matter as were most Germans 100 years later in the matter of the gas-oven deaths of millions of fellow Germans and Europeans – most of whom also happened to be white, but were also Jews, reds, Poles, Russians and others cast out of the human race by the Nazi race laws – their law and order. (These laws had an ideological prototype in the pioneering slogan of the expanding US: “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”)

When the fascist crimes of German, Italian, and Japanese empire are compared with the performance of the U .S. in Vietnam and in the ghettos in this country, there remains no grounds for a plea of ignorance – the essential identity is clear.

Land piracy and genocide are the ultimate source of all those “natural’ geographic, climatic, and ethnic virtues usually cited to account for the exceptionally “high standard of living” of the US.

The methods of modern imperialism are still brutal enough, but they are habitually covered by indirect and sophisticated technique. The real content of still more efficient and intensive oppression and extermination is revealed only when they are effectively resisted as in Vietnam. The historic seizure of the rich lands of the Indians now serves as a model to imitate everywhere. This is the pattern of the US take-over of ranches and oil wells and iron ore mines in Venezuela, the same in Brazil with coffee added, tin in Bolivia, copper in Chile, bananas in Guatemala, oil in the middle east, not long ago it was Cuban sugar and Chinese rice as well.

The modern equivalent of Black slave labor is not confined to the US. It is reproduced in the low prices paid for the oil, iron, and bananas of the new style colonies and in the inflated prices which the monopolists command for their cloth, machines, guns, and “protection” which they export in return. This produces underdevelopment and misery in Africa, South and Central America, Asia, even Canada. It is the cause of starvation wages in Brazil, the Congo, in Panama.

The cavalry, whiskey, and trading goods used against Indians have counter-parts in the jets, napalm, bombs, and peace-corps of today.

Not content with strip-mining humanity, imperialism proceeds to strip-mine the source of life, the earth itself.

Colossal amounts of precious and limited minerals, raw materials, and other resources are being rapidly and wastefully consumed, and in such a way that land, air, and water are spoiled and poisoned in the process. A very large proportion of basic industrial supplies and some kinds of food and agricultural products come here from abroad. Some have estimated that the US consumes about 60% of all raw materials entering into production in the capitalist world, and that we import about the same amount of that from outside our borders.

The US does in fact have bases in all parts of the world. It does spend 100 billion per year on military projects. It is expanding its capital investments abroad. It does make higher profits there. It does expand its holdings in other countries. It does control sources of cheap raw materials. It does try to police the world. It does send AFL-CIO labor traitors abroad with money and threats to contain and destroy labor struggle there.

To reverse all that would cripple precisely most of the greatest corporations and fortunes of the vast industrial and financial and commercial sub-empires of the US General Motors and Standard Oil, Aramco, DuPont, and General Electric are not easy to write-off. Such a reversal would also shatter the plush world of the high military.

The record demolishes the contention that there is no corruption of workers, or other parts of the people, by US imperialism and that the boasted affluence of our society has no effect upon most of the people. The idea is equally unsupportable that by manipulating domestic markets the US economy can get along quite well without the export of capital or extortionate terms of trade and war budgets.

Those who have wiped out imperialism with a stroke of the pen should look again: it is still in business and not for our health but to make super-profit and hang on to power and survive.

It is totally irrelevant whether in theory our country might have developed in another way under different historical circumstances. The fact is that the US right now plays top imperial hog. If we are to speculate, we might consider whether, if tables were reversed, the US would not more nearly resemble India or Indonesia, than it would a small auxiliary economy such as that of Sweden or Switzerland. The real rather than fantastic difference between imperialism and its victims is precisely that between relative affluence and utter misery.

Liberation, if it is to be genuine, must mean that at home and in Africa and Asia and Latin America all the special privileges of US imperialism will have to be undone. There can be no more exchanging the production of a year’s labor of a US worker (priced at $20,000 by the monopoly corporations) for products which represent more than an entire working life for the laborer in a colonized economy (rated at about $400 per year by the unequal terms of trade).

The argument that the US worker does not have any part of the system’s affluence can only be tested by comparing with world standards, depression levels, and long range trends.

Compared to India – the US is affluent. Compared to US 1933 – the US 1968 is affluent. Compared to US families below the level of $3,000 per year – US $12,000 per year is affluent. This is not at all to say that the worker who makes a comparatively large wage has the good life. He still lives his life on the terms of the system.

Those who deny affluence assume that it is good. Since capitalism is bad and cannot do good, affluence must be denied. Actually, under capitalism, affluence is nothing else but a shorter or longer period of increasing economic activity when in a given country fewer people are starving and more are sharing in the consumption of luxury commodities. While this is more tolerable than fighting each day to live to the next, there is no cause to fear that the system has got it made.

The relative prosperity of the US is the product of tightening up exploitation and oppression world-wide and is proving to be very shaky. To pursue the goal of personal enrichment is to live in a fool’s paradise.

One who undertakes to disprove the existence of affluence among workers is Carl Davidson. (Guardian, Nov. 23, 1968, page 6.) He follows in the footsteps of many old left writers who always “prove” this with data about average wages and minimum budget needs. He cited a 1967 average of $116 take home wage for a family of four. He breaks down this figure into several lower categories to show that most families of industrial workers get a good deal less than that. He gives one higher average, that of 3.3 million construction workers who take home $127 per week.

Of course this is peanuts on the scale of bourgeois standards of income in this country. And the fact is that even the highest figure does not guarantee that any family will be able to meet its material requirements plus what have come to be defined as our needs. Even $20,000 or $30,000 a year would still not compare to the system’s higher salary levels. It still is not the good life – it still is caught up in the rat-race. What is more decisive is that under the political economy of imperialism, if a million or so workers “rise” to the $20,000 income level, then they will be used to hold down and grind the face of 500 times that number elsewhere so that imperialism gets ten or a hundred times its money’s worth out of the high price it paid for their labor. This is why, at times, big business men are quite willing to bargain with official labor.

Further, an average which conceals the existence of lower paid groups also conceals the higher wages which make the average come out. Davidson’s lower categories REVEAL the existence of much higher paid groups than any he mentions. It can be no secret that at $6 PLUS an hour, and double time for overtime, many construction workers make $12,000 per year and more.

On the west coast, longshoremen have averaged $9,000 and $10,000 per year and more in the larger ports. In reporting union enforcement of penalties for pilfering cargo, William Gettings, International Longshoremen and Warehousemen’s Union Northwest regional director, states that for a first offense a longshoreman loses work for 60 days, this being equal to a fine of about $2,000. On a second offense a man loses his job plus “… a $235 pension (monthly) for the rest of his life, $13,000 in severance pay and welfare benefits…” (Case of 27-year man convicted of taking two bottles of liquor. Seattle Times, 12-6-68.)

In a family with the equivalent of two such $ 12,000 incomes, (here we are not concerned with whether it comes from moonlighting, overtime, extra worker, playing landlord etc., only with comparing family totals) the total would be $24,000. A family with two $3,000 incomes, only $6,000. The difference is the equivalent of the income of 6 low wage workers. The 4 to 1 ratio assumed here is smaller than many actual cases, which can go to 10 to 1 and more. Again, this is very small when compared to income of big capitalists and management; ratios can go to 1000 to 1. When all the relevant conclusions are drawn from economic data, the result is different than when only those supporting one’s wishful thinking are taken into account. The system has been able to divide and co-opt some of the workers. This fact needs to be faced and dealt with and not ignored and hidden from view.

Even the very real decline in real wages often cited contributes to relative affluence. The better organized workers concentrated in the biggest corporations and more prosperous trades have won the biggest share of the increases and benefits. Those in weaker unions or not organized such as workers in retail trade, some parts of food, and agriculture, hospital workers, local government, and school and college staff other than higher paid teaching posts, are all worse off. In addition to lower wages, they have inferior medical service and pay more proportionately for rent and food which show the highest price rises.

Persons not limited to the world of statistics, but who have some contact with actual skilled workers, know that corruption exists. Corruption is the willingness to put selfish gain ahead of class solidarity or public interest. A small but significant number of workers are also landlords, dabble in real estate or stocks, own beer taverns etc. Certain union contracts are basically job trusts. Sons, in-laws, buddies get the jobs and the apprenticeships. For the best jobs, there are no openings for Blacks or women or outside young persons. Jurisdictional squabbles are everyday stuff. The impact of all this goes far beyond those directly involved.

This pattern is not purely economic. The whole society orients the worker toward competition in accumulating things, doing his job, taking orders and allotting all responsibility for major decision making to bosses and politicians. The worker’s bag is supposed to be limited to baseball, football, TV beer and cards. He should support his family, produce the real wealth and be content to know that he is as good as anyone, maybe a little better. Of this “structured and channeled life style” the new theorists display not the foggiest notion. Many veterans know these things very well but either take it as normal, or being ashamed of it, talk nonsense and babble about class conscious militant and revolutionary-minded workers about to rise and dump the AFL-CIO mis-leaders in the ash can.

Poverty, starvation, and affluence are not mutually exclusive; in the US they exist at the same time and often side by side. Poverty is the necessary foundation for affluence under capitalism and imperialism which make their super-profits from exploitation and oppression.

The existence of poverty is a spur to insure a supply of loyal and industrious labor. It is also a source of profit for ghetto landlords, merchants, and sweat-shop employers who are an essential part of the total system. Why should the system eliminate if it could, anything so useful and indispensable?

The superior conditions of the better-off parts of labor are always fragile and subject to change. But even in bad times, the most favored are not hit quite so hard or so soon by wage cuts and unemployment, evictions etc. So the competition and division pressures are built into the whole structure. Against this, the only weapon of the workers is their political understanding and class solidarity. This is what scabs in union office are trying to destroy when they commit labor to support crimes against other working people, as, for example, war in Vietnam.

This negative side has to be analyzed and faced. It does not mean that everything is lost or that workers must be written off as a revolutionary force. It does mean that the class interest of workers must be defined in terms of 1969, US and not in terms of 1933. The heart of the matter is that, contrary to surface appearances, there is no real security or future prospects for the majority of workers in the individual or craft rat-race for the biggest chunk of pie. The only way to win is to fight the entire system. Since time is not unlimited, we have to start learning to do this.

COMPANY MEN WITH A UNION CARD

Business Unionism rests on the basis of capitalist economics including a portion of the proceeds from imperialism. This is not just pure and simple sell-out and crude bribery. There is a social base and there are ideological roots.

Since World War II, there has been a decline in class conscious action among workers. Many officially recognized unions have become more conservative, even reactionary, in their total role. This is so in spite of some upsurges in strike action and even where, by way of exception, some unions like the former Mine Mill union and the ILWU continue to give lip service to radical positions on some issues.

This does not mean that workers deliberately sell out by the millions. Nor is it only that they are sold against their will by Meany, Reuther, and Bridges, although that happens. The trap is not so simple.

Business unionism flies two main banners, “collective bargaining” and the “partnership of business and labor.” Collective bargaining is the hard won right of workers to be represented by their unions. This right was a life and death matter to workers who had no other way to defend their right to live and improve their conditions.

Collectivity is a very good thing. But today it usually means for one trade, one industry, one corporation, one union, one craft, one crew. It often comes down to a small group of high seniority, highly skilled, better paid old timers in the union whom the officers pay the most attention in order to stay in power. This has great effect upon those next in line for the better jobs and positions. When wild-cat strikes erupt from below, even these are not often connected with radical social or political aims. Usually they are limited to seeking gains in relative standing within the existing structure.

As for bargaining, it once meant more than it literally implies; now it is an accurate definition of what goes on. Usually it goes something like this: union officials and company representatives, with professional assistance from highly paid corporation, union, and federal lawyers and experts, determine how much the company will be willing to pay for continued labor co-operation and peace and how little the workers may be willing to accept. It is determined how to distribute that price to he best effect among various demands, and what the union may be willing to give up in return. Finally, a method of selling the entire package to members and to the public must be decided upon.

In an earlier day of more militant action, demands concerned many very basic things, such as across the board increases o a living wage level, union recognition, seniority to prevent blacklisting of militant workers, anti-discrimination clauses or fair and rotating hiring and dispatching procedures. Rank and file workers on strike often were decisive in the negotiating committees. Political and social issues were part of union activity. Free Tom Mooney, defend the Scottsboro Boys, unemployment benefits, and social security for everybody, all working people, by many unions.

Typical demands at present are quite different. Big increases for the 5 or 6 dollar an hour level, small or no increases for new hires. Wages for women, young people, and jobs usually filled by Black workers still move around the $1.65 per hour minimum or less. Hospital, dental, medical care for the permanent workers of one company, higher pensions for 20 and 30 year men of one company or association.

Of course, when even a few thousand families gain added health services or better pensions, this is good for them individually. But when the benefit” is a concealed pay-off designed to divide them from fellow-workers and from millions of oppressed now taking up the fight against the common enemy, that benefit has too high a price. It is the price of supporting, or contributing to, by passive consent, such things as the spread of fascism, aggressive war and national and racial oppression and genocide. It is to accept the ruling class trap – take whatever you can today and to hell with all the rest.

The alternative is not to give up health service or better pensions. It is to fight for adequate protection for all the working people, as well as those unable to work. Granting exclusive rights to some and denying the same to others is a basic strategy of the system. This is also true in different ways in the educational system, the draft, and all major institutions of the Establishment. Divide and rule is still its basic strategy and best tactic.

Such bargains seem reasonable; they make the big companies pay. But they build up more and more privilege and offer little or nothing to the young, the women, the minority workers. They also raise health and housing costs out sight for everyone else due to medical rackets, etc. They take the government off the hook. Such deals are reactionary in social content – they divide the workers and the people. “Everyone for himself and the devil take the hindmost” replaces the old union slogan, “one for all and all for one.”

A worker with so much depending on his boss and the company is open to all kinds of pressure to go along with the system. This does not put the worker in the same class with all the big and middling parasites who make it big on unearned income. The co-opted worker is not the main enemy. But if facts of this kind are not faced it will be a thousand times more difficult to create a new radical and revolutionary working class force.

How can old fighters with much experience get sucked into such traps? How can they allow the collective class weapon, the union, to be turned into a mere business institution for the benefit of the boss and a few high paid workers? Why don’t lower paid workers rebel? What happened to international solidarity, especially with the Black and the Vietnamese workers and our long range common interest against our common enemy?

KARL MARX: “WAGE LABOR RESTS EXCLUSIVELY ON COMPETITION BETWEEN THE LABORERS.”
Communist Manifesto, 1848

Part of the answer (in general we do not expect to find full answers at once, but only to open up some new directions and new questions) WAS the treachery and desertion of a class struggle outlook by onetime left workers and radicals in the unions who formerly worked to keep alive the revolutionary background and the democratic and anti-slavery traditions of struggle of the labor movement.

But it is also a fact that the left has never taken seriously the reactionary side of US history: so far the dangerous de-facto involvement and entrapment of parts of the people in the crimes of the system have been ignored.

Partly for this reason, after World War II the left was not prepared to meet the heavy attack of US super-egotism and arrogance disguised as “patriotic” resistance to world communism. A very big defeat was suffered through the failure of most of the left to vigorously defend Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were framed and executed on a treason charge by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations as a major blow against the left.

Timidity and panic of this sort opened the way for the Establishment to launch a big brain-washing throughout the nation. With the left weakened, conservatives were able to take advantage of the workers’ need for unions to consolidate their own control and policy. This was made easier by the fact that workers often depend upon one occupation, one boss, one location, one union and are thus vulnerable to blacklisting and have little recourse if thrown on the street.

Productive workers are usually proud of that role. But they are almost entirely cut off from decision making powers in important matters. The only place they have an effective voice is in the union and in a token way by voting. And the union now tells them that the system is really OK. It just needs tuning up and a patch or two.

If workers resist and oppose this line they jeopardize all their benefits from the union which are very real to the individual workers. The dispatcher will pass them by for good jobs or for any job at all. The BA (business agent) will not go to bat for them and may even help to get them fired or sent to jail.

Some unions with a left militant background did not give way at once. But with steady pressure and the growth of war boom, they too fell into line. Again, the west coast longshoremen (ILWU) are an example. This union, unlike most, opposed the Vietnam war – in words and in convention resolutions. But its members make a very good living out of the boom in shipping due to the need for supplies to murder Vietnamese. The union has yet to take its first action to halt such traffic. (Some individuals have.) Outright company unions do not do a much more effective job of scabbing on fellow-workers.

The excuse of the union officers is, “We cannot do anything by ourselves, we would be crushed.” In reality they are out to get all the “blood money,” as Bridges calls it, that they can. (He has a running dialogue going with the Navy over jurisdiction over civil service loaders of ammunition from Navy dumps, as at Bangor, WA.) A few years ago, Bridges made his notorious modernization and mechanization agreement which traded working rules and conditions for a few millions in a special union fund. In five years, the stevedoring and shipping companies made an extra profit of close to 100 million on the deal. The ILWU is not worse than others, it is only that the hypocrisy is more repulsive because of all the “left” talk.

Unions serve a need in defending the livelihood and conditions of workers and their right to organize has to be defended against those who wish to weaken and destroy the labor movement.

But at the same time union members are also victimized by scabs in union offices at business executive salaries running from $25,000 a year up to $150,000 and more, with lifetime pensions to boot. They are also protected from membership control by devices like union dues check-off by the boss and by government imposed regulations, reports, FBI surveillance, fines for militant action, compulsory arbitration and conspiracy laws etc. Many unions are also big investors in business, real-estate, banks and insurance companies.

No one is more loyal to imperialism or more ready to do its dirty work than a “labor statesman” like George Meany. But the Establishment is not sentimental. If one of them gets a little out of line he may be sent to jail like Jimmy Hoffa. In tough times, or if it offers more profit, the partnership of business and labor will be dumped and the bosses will go back to plain and simple union busting.

What workers need is their own version of a new left movement to clean house in labor. They need organization with a class outlook and fighting muscle instead of a mere business expediting machine for carrying cut the boss’s and the government’s labor relations policies. It is not possible to transform the labor movement by trying to out wheel and deal the professional labor skates. It is necessary to oppose them with a movement which serves the genuine class interest of working people.

These facts are not given so that others may feel superior to the industrial workers. Whether loading napalm or running a computer for General Motors, or teaching school, every person in the US is involved in imperialism in some way and has both a responsibility to fight against it as well as an interest in doing so – except for imperialists and their camp-followers. The first step toward effective struggle is to see that it is necessary and accept the responsibility.

The line of denial of the effects of corruption and bribery by the imperialist system is worse than mere passivity, it is self-defeating. If the fact is denied, who will try to change it? Workers and most of the people are not the criminals; they only carry the criminals on their backs. This is what has to be changed.

Lower income workers are also affected by the competitive forces which corrupt many high paid workers. But their situation is different. Many are un-organized; for others there are unions which make little, if any effort to improve wages and conditions. Wages are near or below minimums. (Waitresses and hotel workers, laundry and hospital, farm, clerks, many office and government workers.) Things happen like no wage increases at all, or 4 to 6 cent increases frozen into three year contracts. Speed up and cutting of staff goes on constantly.

A big part of keeping these workers in their place is the sex, color, and age discrimination and division tactic. This is enforced not only by the individual boss, but by the whole system.

Women are a very large part of the work force in these industries. So are Blacks and minority national groups. The inferior sex rationale is in full force. If there is a working husband or son in the house, then the woman is making “extra” money, or at least it is hers and not his to control, sometimes. If there is no man, then with children to support, the problem may be posed as one of personal hardship, broken family, illness etc. – a case worker type problem – or self-blame may be picked up from the bosses’ tradition that workers are stupid. Anyone who has more than average education or other qualification does not work long in such jobs without being asked by some other worker: “What is someone like you doing in this hole?”

In these industries there were formerly many left-minded activists. During the cold war and McCarthy period they were cleaned out by top union officials, by jailings, prosecutions, and firings. In some cases, like maritime and logging, they succeeded in transforming the occupation from low-paid to high-paid and gradually joined the “labor aristocracy.” This poses the critical problem: how to support the justified demands of low-paid workers for wages and conditions without repeating once more that characteristic pattern of labor opportunism and reformism?

The answer is not necessarily in new radical unions. Workers are loyal to even very bad unions knowing how much worse off they would be with no unions. And consider the present AFL-CIO push to co-opt the Agricultural Workers organization of Delano which threatened to actually organize farm workers in a militant and slightly radical way. The bureaucrats know a million ways to sabotage struggle while condemning the ranks for apathy and indifference.

Workers are inevitably concerned with immediate conditions – both to hold whatever they have and to make gains if they can. But petty reforms or even substantial gains of themselves do not change the system in the slightest. The only way to break through the vicious circle of petty reforms (this is called economism or pure and simple trade-unionism – but it is NOT non-political, it is political on the side of the system) is basically a mass understanding that the working people as a total social group, that is as a class, cannot beat the system; the pre-condition of real change is to take it over and do it in. One way this understanding grows is when workers demand not just what is reasonable and easy for the boss to grant, but also fight for those social and political demands which the system should be able to deliver, but which it is unable or unwilling to concede.

The criticism made above of some shallow thinking among part of the new left does not mean that they have not done some great things which can help to solve these problems. Analysis and theory is still a good deal behind the action and politics. But this does not mean everything is one big floundering mess, as some think. There are a number of solid starting points to move ahead from:

1.
Action against the Vietnam war and to support Black liberation has been a very hard blow to the public image and moral posturing of the system.

2.
Action at home too has helped to show that imperialism is not invincible; it can be successfully resisted.

3.
There are people, mainly the young, who have the ability and the guts to reject the values of the system and live for something other than conspicuous consumption covered by a false rationale. This is the REAL importance of the rejection of consumerism – not its projection into a fantastic market solution for capitalism.

The rejection of consumerism and waste and junk commodities and poisoning our lives and our environment, which we referred to as strip mining the earth above indicts one of the biggest of the crimes of imperialism.

If we consider this crime in the context of the Cultural Revolution slogan – fight self-interest, promote public interest – we will be able to get closer to the heart of the problem of the labor movement and the genuine interests of the workers. Labor demands must be conceived in a way which meets collective rather than purely selfish interest.

In addition to seeking collective action and collective controls over our productive and intellectual lives, we need to organize a unified social bloc as collective consumers. Individual competition and consumerism is another non-solution and a trap for all working people. Realizing this, how do we move?

For example, we should not put forward or support, but should oppose creating any more separatist company and union health, hospital, and dental plans. We should fight for such care for all people who need it. Existing plans should be taken into a general plan. We should see to it that public health services come under the control and direction of consumers, not the government and the medical elite. Pensions, social security, disability, and unemployment compensation – these should all be re-examined as universal social rights and as obligations of society, rather than as objects of craft bargaining. Educational opportunities for workers and work opportunities for students offer another field where new directions and new demands are required. There is a need to fight for financing at the expense of profits and waste and the war budget. (Some individual union members with whom this has been discussed object to criticizing present union contract demands for health benefits. All support a general demand for universal care at state expense. Most young workers and all students consulted favor the present wording.)

There is a need for workers to sponsor an entirely new approach to taxes and budgeting to take the load off the lowest paid workers and the unemployed and to work out new concepts of social welfare. These should be based on the idea of providing all the social services in the most effective and collective way under community and consumer control and organization.

In particular there should be a fight against expanding the Madison Avenue nightmare concept of mechanized domestic factories grinding out channeled little American lives by the efforts of menial female and child labor. Everything that can be done better socially and with trained and skilled labor should be done collectively, co-operatively, and without waste and poisonous by-products. Laundry, food preparation and storage, heating, housing, cleaning, and above all transportation are some things which need to be socialized and collectivized to go along with adequate child care as part of the liberation of women, without which there will be no genuine liberation of anybody.

In sum unions should remain in the field of politics and social action but they should be forced to get back on the side of the workers and the people by an uprising from below. Certain things need to be kept in mind:

The economy is a closely intermingled mix of private and state – no major sector can be dealt with separately.

Black workers and Black community may no longer be ignored or used; they will have an equal and strategic weight in all decisions and structure.

The US economy and politics are international. Nothing will serve labor which does not accord with the needs of oppressed workers in other countries. So long as imperialism exists there will be oppression and exploitation, but meanwhile we can fight against all acts of aggression, all unequal treaties, discriminatory laws and tariffs. We can interfere with the military and diplomatic and cultural implementation of imperialism.

The general inability of students and intellectuals to relate the immediate concerns of workers to the general class and public interest is a mountain size road-block in the way of creating a new labor-left. Our generation of young people have become the voice of radical politics and of the future because they have arrived at exactly the right time.

The system is undergoing a severe crisis in credibility caused by the gaping chasm between its liberal pose and its contrastingly miserable fascist and genocidal performances in Vietnam and in the ghettos.

When the Establishment took fright from the first Soviet Sputnik, it hastily created college level educational factories and drew in hundreds of thousands and millions of new students. They could not all be safe conservatives from stable families. Furthermore, the draft began to haunt and channel their lives. They were expected to assume the chores of running the Establishment and defend it loyally – in return for good position and pay and much status. But the breakdown of the liberal rationale by hard facts and revolutionary ideas filtering in spite of everything spoiled the plan.

Many students already questioned the emptiness of a life of collecting material gadgets as the big deal. Without too many immediate obligations, not tied to a boss or conservative union – they were free to think. The system needed them, but for a while it had no real controls over them.

The students made free to reject the values of the universities and to determine their own personal direction, to do their thing. The role of the student and the impact of Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and the Black struggles fitted them to rebel. Some became directly political, some tried to drop out of the system’s anti-culture.

Ironically – the same things which alienated the young people from the Establishment and turned them into radicals and carriers of a new wave of revolutionary excitement, also took forms which alienated them from the workers who remained straight – socially and politically – for the workers were not yet hit directly by the crisis in the super-structure. Later it reaches the workers in the crisis of the military and manpower. …

The intellectual gets disgusted with the conservatism he sees in the worker who is supposed to gain the most from revolution and is to be its chief maker, but who seems not interested. So when the intellectual wants to be friendly because he has heard about Marxism and the need for a working class base – then he does not know what to do and he invents a hundred theories and dozens of organizing projects.

On other subjects the intellectual would do his thing – he would study the problem. This one seems simple – it is pure economics. The workers are assumed to be paid off and hopeless or else they do not know yet that they are poor and can never make it. So the intellectual must prove to the workers that they really are poor.

There is arrogance in this: the assumption that working people will respond only to economic bait – that they are not capable of the same social, political, and moral judgment and motivation and commitment as the student, who in turn may not have yet tried himself out on unemployment compensation or relief-check living. This is snobbery not based on facts.

The movement needs better answers as to the roots of conservatism in the labor movement, what exactly are the problems and outlook of workers. After learning some of this, better grounds for unity in action can be worked out. There should not be illusions that the direction of seeking solutions proposed here is easy to carry out successfully – few real solutions are.

BREAKING THROUGH THE TRAP

When the US took charge of the bankrupt business which came to it as spoils after World War II, it fully expected to be a success because of its superior assets as compared to fascist Germany and Japan.

The US surpasses the axis powers in many ways. It delivers flaming death from the air instead of from obsolete gas ovens. It has computerized all of the planning. It has 2000 and more bases scattered all around in an effort to make a jailhouse out of the entire globe. It has dropped more explosives on one small part of Asia than were used by all countries in all of World War II.

But it too is losing. It has overtaxed its strength and is slipping down the hill. Costs continue to mount while the returns cannot keep pace. The US has set world records in exporting capital and armed force and in importing profits and looted materials. But this in turn has provoked a new world record in resistance which the U .S. is unable to overcome.

The present crisis is a crisis of overexpansion – of gulping down too many indigestibles. This crisis is different in form than that of 1929 which was world wide but broke out first in the domestic economy of the US. This economy is now internationalized. It has exported its contradictions on a world scale where they grow faster than ever.

This crisis is more severe than any before: any one of several main features are potentially fatal to imperialism.

There is that world wide resistance which exposes the boasted military power of the US. Small peoples beat the stuffing out of it. The military is spread thin, trying to hang on everywhere. It gets disorganized and panicky and costs soar. The rank and file of the armed forces become disaffected, and these men and women are mostly young workers.

The democratic and liberal pretensions of the system are rapidly discredited and with the loss of popular support, allies get shaky.

The big corporations make the profit; costs are paid mostly by the government. As these costs rise, the dollar trembles, inflation and higher taxes threaten the middle and poor sections of the people and the weaker parts of the war distorted economy. This uneven effect widens the gap between rich and poor. Alienation increases between those who profit from war and oppression and those who pay the costs.

The eventual crack-up casts its shadow before. This sharpens all the more the clash between the liberal rationale and hard facts for the young people and intellectuals who are being prepared to organize and supervise the dirty work.

Those peoples fighting imperialism abroad, as, for example, Vietnamese and Cubans, have not generally demanded restitution or punishment fitting to the crimes of the US. They have merely said: “Yankee go home.” But there is at home a strong contingent of peoples also oppressed even while embedded in the society and economy of the US. They begin to find themselves as distinct peoples differing from others only in that their colonial and oppressed status is internal to the US rather than external.

But as to these peoples, Black, Red Indian, and Brown Mexican-American, where shall they invite the Yankee to go? He has made his home here on the spot and there is no other convenient place.

Black people speak as those who have had to live with and for the US the longest. They say – get out of my house, my community, and my hair. But they add – Burn, Baby, Burn. In this slogan the Black appears not as a rearguard or second front of world resistance, but as its spearhead and vanguard – this is the Black version of Death to Imperialism.

If we of the white movements do not do an adequate job in helping to deal with “our own” imperialists, this will not affect in the least the commitment of all the others to oppose and defeat and eventually destroy imperialism. In fact, they may rather soon cut off the world network of pipe-lines through which the US pumps out force and violence and pumps back loot. But hang-ups and hanging back on our part can cost very, very much in terms of what is takes to do the job and how soon we too as a people will be liberated from the consequences of imperialism and capitalism.

The world cannot longer afford the military and domestic havoc which is the inevitable residue of imperialist profit-making. An important factor in this is that strip-mining of all available portions of the earth for wasteful (and ultimately suicidal) consumption practiced by the US.

As an example, transportation is a necessity – but two or three private cars in a family and an acre of paving for every half acre of crops is criminal. This social practice provokes hatred no matter how sanctified it may be to General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford because of the high profits which it brings in. The same must be said of every other idle and wasteful and duplicative consumption of metal, food, land, and water. Even worse are the filthy and reckless methods which poison and pollute land, air, and water. And from gutting the land mass and fouling the air, the system is turning its attention to the world’s oceans.

This is a great unpardonable crime of imperialism. Mass deprivation versus the world hog is a time-bomb with very few years on the fuse.

The new left has made a preliminary thrust at this target and has begun to make ecology an issue. If followed up, this can become a prime meeting point of the new movements and the basic class interests of the workers and the public interests of the world’s peoples.

But people in the US should not console themselves with illusions. Whatever else the future may or may not bring, it will not include imperialism, which is beyond salvage. The system is running overtime to conceal the fact that its time is running out. It wants to prolong its criminal existence.

What the system needs to conceal is exactly what we need to expose. This will speed up our common liberation; people have everything to gain in this universal struggle. It is within our power to take our place in the fight.

THREE YEARS LATER, May 24, 1972

Note: Since the first printing of “The Movement and the Workers” is exhausted it seems important to comment on what has happened since early 1969 and this second printing in 1972.

Just as work on this edition was getting started, there came a happy interruption in the form of mass upsurge of anti-war actions and demonstrations. These actions are aimed at Nixon’s desperate efforts to salvage the US’s losing military gamble in SE Asia by one more escalation of its genocidal war in Vietnam.

Life interrupts writing, which is good. In addition, the reactionary liberal “political authorities” have been caught with their mouth open solemnly pronouncing the wasting away of the movement and the death of revolution. This saves wasting time and effort to answer.

Revolution in our country is at its beginning; there has been no real test of basic strategies. Our choices seem unclear. Our initial clashes have begun to show strong and weak points on each side. And the enemy is bearing down on all the real and invented weaknesses hammering the movement to discredit the revolutionary groups and leaders (and using freaked-out and weak ones) to discredit the whole idea.

Sure enough, we are still weak. But without analyzing US imperialism and the best ways to fight it, and the history and psychology of our people, there can’t be a functional evaluation and criticism of how we go about things. Only a wipe-out. If we observe how the empire tries to control its home front, we see that our mistakes and failings have taken place in the middle of furious movement and there are tremendous gains and accomplishments to show for it.

The empire has used all its material, geographical, and technical and spiritual resources to prevent revolution; economic and educational institutions along with climate, space, and land; national arrogance and pride and racism, sexism, chauvinism, individualism, competition, careerism, and family controls, pacifism, cultural, and radio-TV news manipulations.

The loyalty inspectors and people monitors of the empire are on the alert to use all weaknesses on the left, new or old, to make the new activists either fall back into old reformist opportunism or to over-correct with super-left weirdness and so to flounder helplessly.

In the face of all that, the new left has done very well on many strategic points. This is possible largely due to the resistance of, and the successes won by, the Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, Angolan, Mozambiquan, and Palestinian, Brazilian, Cuban, and many more peoples. These Third World peoples have created crises for the US empire that are favorable to changes here. These crises continue to expand.

The whole country now know what the rest of the world has known a long time: that the US is not a misunderstood great democratic country, it is a rapacious empire. Masses of people have begun (only begun but still, it’s a beginning) to repudiate white supremacy, national chauvinism, and the authority of the state. People have seen the use by police of violence and terror and assassination, followed by more selective repressions against the most rebellious designed to isolate them and divide the peoples.

People know that the US government rests on force and violence. They can see that there are no moral limits to empire genocide, that expediency is the rule, and that only peoples’ revolutionary resistance can set any limits. But people also see that even very small countries can win against the empire for all its violence and genocide.

Aggressive competition is no longer unchallenged gospel. The nuclear competitive-oppressive family is under fire; people want to learn how to live better collectively. A massive women’s rebellion is building up. It is also under heavy counter-revolutionary pressure and has its problems with factionalism and sometimes go-it-alone ideas. But its basic attack upon sexism and oppression reaches the largest potentially revolutionary force in this country and that brings it into collision with the system and the empire. The US empire did not invent either racism or sexism but it is their biggest promoter, protector, and defender; without such fascist controls the empire cannot survive.

Pushed by Black and Brown resistance and by a new consciousness of how they are being used and destroyed, young women and men of working class origins have been revolting in the armed forces and in the prisons.

The empire depends on these institutions to keep it going. When it loses control here, it cannot last a lot longer.

These are things that we have learned both from world revolution and from our own lives and our best rebels. They are the greatest things to happen in our country, ever. That is why they are sneered at and despised and feared by our enemies. And by cowards and fools parasiting on the movement. These are the main trends in our revolution – Humpty-Dumpty can’t be put back together again. And not the least reason is that many Black, Brown, and white revolutionaries, men and women, have shown that they are ready to go beyond talk and are prepared to die for this good and sufficient cause – but they are also able to survive and fight on.

In this context, the whole long list of past and present failings and foolish ideas is not so depressing. Things like slow learning, rejection for too long a time of past experience, uncertain analysis, uncritical acceptance of freak and dope culture in its entirety, anarchist individualism, rejection of class ideology and understanding, weak organization, bravado and boasting, and so on. All these are serious things, but they are not the main point in evaluating the recent past. (Even though they have to be changed to move ahead.) What is decisive now is that a good many of the old bars to revolutionary action have been broken and breaches made. We haven’t been able to handle so much all at once and we haven’t been able to break on through – but the way is open.

In order to move on, we have to see which of our shortcomings are the most damaging at any particular time and deal with then. We also have to deal with some of the heavier lies being laid on our movements.

Some of those trying to shoot us down say that anti-imperialist politics is nothing but a guilt trip, a moral do-gooding self-purge and a general drag. This is picked up by promoter types hanging around the movement. They say that everyone has to move off of their own oppression. Purely. Which is another way of saying that everyone should just try to do her/his own thing. That is, no revolutionary collectivity, unity, and togetherness in action to win. But how else do you win against an empire that is organizing and oppressing on a world-wide basis?

Move off your own oppression – sure. But – sometimes you have to say but – not all oppressions are equal or even the same kind of thing at all. So what happens with us? The old national arrogance cuts in and there is a “competition” of oppressions. My own usually comes first, then the rest follow in a regular hierarchy of oppressions.

The main put-down is to deny the great importance of the strategic insight to be gained from studying Vietnamese, Chinese, and Black and Brown resistance and wars of liberation.

For the heart of world reality – the nature of the resistance – is the fight to be free of imperial domination of any sort; this is now the center of world-wide revolution. This is steadily, day by day, destroying the old order of things and creating a new and human society – along with new human beings. This does not give us all the answers; it does put the right questions and it indicates directions that we need to take.

Our own oppressions are relative to those of the rest of this world. But only resistance can transform oppression into a revolutionary force. Our resistance depends on a whole lot of things. Class and revolutionary consciousness, experience in struggle and making revolution, numbers as well as organization, mass organizations, movements, having a people’s army and a party with good politics and strategy – allies, the state of the enemy, his resources and skill, and technology and weapons.

Once we see how we fit into this world picture, we can go on from there.

Some people claim that the anti-imperialist movement is not revolutionary because it is led by young people and sometimes by middle-class students instead of by workers. This is pushed by groups that pronounce themselves to be Marxist-Leninist – such as the Communist Party, Revolutionary Union, and a few Trotskyist sects, along with the Progressive Labor Party. One thing they all do in common is to present themselves as the chief advocates of the discovery by Karl Marx of the revolutionary role of the working class. But what they do with that is not to try to destroy imperialism but to the contrary, they wipe out Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and how to make the revolution in the imperialist stage of the capitalist system.

Every reactionary quality of the establishment-controlled trade unions (mostly long ago described and denounced by Lenin) is praised, or rationalized, or hid by these lecturers who are revolutionary only in words. They cover up for reactionary labor officials by shouting that every piddling reform or petty economic demand is the key to revolution. They denounce anyone who won’t praise reactionary unions to the skies. Any militant political or anti-imperialist confrontation they denounce as premature and adventurous. They ignore the fact that in practice any significant reforms or concessions by the system have always come after revolutionary initiative and struggle, not from liberal pleadings.

As for criticizing unions that are conservative, or their elite-minded status-conscious members who fall into racist, sexist, and other fascist-like social conduct – such criticism is looked upon as total treason by all of these groups. What they do is to try to use people’s love of great revolutionary countries and their leaders like Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung, as political stock in trade to confuse the real nature of our own revolutionary tasks here and now in our actual situation.

Lenin declared that the class basis of conservative unionism is the privileged position of special sections of workers (and even of entire classes and nations in some respects) in the imperialist countries. Those who push the mythical “purely revolutionary” worker of the US ignore the existence of that privilege and its effects and never deal with the record or the facts. They show the kind of Leninists they are by totally ignoring Lenin’s great work on this subject.

Even the better off workers are, of course, not the most privileged people in this country. It is also true that young people and students, all but the poorest, most despised racial and sexual outcasts, share in some ways and amounts in empire privilege and all are influenced by US arrogance in some degree.

There is another version of the pure class struggle line which argues that the best way for workers here to help liberation fighters of other countries is to overthrow the system right here at home in their own self interest. Sounds plausible.

The catch is that right now, US workers are a long way from making a revolution. In practice, it comes to worker’s unions negotiating their contracts to improve their own conditions and get more money while those overseas shed more blood and their homes are devastated by the US war machines made and delivered by us on improved terms. This conveniently one-sided “class” self-interest turns out to be not love and peoplehood or collectivity and solidarity, but pure selfishness and people-eating competitiveness in disguise.

The official labor movement of the US has bought its respectability and its bargaining right by abandoning the unorganized and the poor at home and the entire working population of the Third World. That is why it is still a minority of workers in the US and is unable to organize those who need it the most. More, it is uninterested in the fate of the oppressed either at home or abroad.

That this is very real is shown by the action of the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen’s Union in its recent strike (that was almost unanimously supported by the left) but which right from the very first made provision to work all war supplies for the US genocide in Vietnam while the strike was on. This is a Union that is officially on record as being opposed to the war in Vietnam.

Way back in 1919, Seattle longshoremen were not afraid to strike and shut down the port to stop shipments of machine guns for US counter-revolutionary intervention Siberia and helped to end that aggression against the Russian people. It is still true today that a revolutionary is one who understands (like those 1919 strikers) that there will never be an anti-capitalist revolution or the building of a new society in our own country until anti-imperialist consciousness and love and solidarity actions among workers breaks through those narrow business union deals with the empire and its bosses. Check it out – if you work for a boss – chances are that your job and your union, if any, are hot-beds of sexism, racism, dog eat dog competition, and elitism and arrogance.

Isn’t it better to risk some time, money, hard work, even a job, to collectively fight all that than to tolerate it and participate in and go along with a system that rests on oppression and genocide? Especially when those selfish craft and small group advantages and privileges can only add up to a life that is mean and sub-human in its essence.

Not far down the road, the imperial way of life is going to meet even heavier weather. Most of the world is already working at knocking out the US empire, and they are winning. When the empire goes down, the stakeholders are going to lose their stakes. Ordinary people don’t have that much to lose. In the long run, even the workers who right now are better off will gain too. I do not mean that they will have more cars and cabin cruisers and mortgages. They can have a better life in quality and human relationships and the security of a purpose for living – a meaningful job to do – and collective ways of using utilities and resources.

Meanwhile, everybody can fight to re-appropriate the loot of the empire in whatever way they can – by strikes or other means.

But that is not revolutionary unless we are living, thinking, and fighting collectively and using our energy and income and skill to build revolution and to sabotage the empire.

Consider the evidence now coming out of Vietnam, Korea, China. People who live on minimum incomes as compared to most of us are already living more human satisfying lives. In many cases they are having better medical care and live in healthier surrounding, eat healthier foods, have much more assurance about the future than do we. For all of the richness in this country, most of our lives are made miserable by the system.

While the empire still hangs on to power, poor and low income people have to solve survival problems. But merely to stay alive on the terms of this system just reproduces the problems bigger and sicker than ever. If a few people do “rise” into the class of families that have enough income to compete in consumption, they are still trapped in a horrible sick society rat-race and often have even less control over their lives than before.

Recently, with some temporary slowing up of action at home, Nixon and most of the media (Time, Life, TV etc.) started in a big way to promote pacifism and non-violence and gradual legal processes as against direct action. (For others, of course, not themselves.) To a small extent they use the old moral sermons, but coming from the bloody establishment this is not all that convincing. So they have created for the use of liberals outside and inside the movement a new twist. What they say now is this: violence has been tried on and it’s a failure; it turns people off too.

What has actually happened is something we could have anticipated. Events have shown that the established and highly organized violence of the state is still stronger than the weakly developed and little practiced power of the people. But even our small trial encounters show that people are happy whenever they get in a stout blow and are not turned off at all by direct action and violence when it is necessary, as for example, as it is used by the Vietnamese.

Mass opposition and hatred for the war in Vietnam has grown most ,just recently when there has been the most forceful action against imperialism both in the Third World and at home. More than ever before. You can not win fighting an empire that you allow to choose which weapons you can use.

Which doesn’t mean that non-violent activity is not also a useful and effective tactic sometimes; and it doesn’t keep some people who believe in non-violence from doing important things against the war.

But practice proves that what is going to bring down the empire and defeat its colonizing wars is the resistance of the intended victims and their wars of liberation together with supporting actions here at home and elsewhere. No popular referendum is going to convert Republican Nixon anymore than it did Democrat Lyndon Johnson. Both of them got elected by promising to end the war. People shouldn’t wear the blinders and the handcuffs offered by the system; neither should they get discouraged if the empire doesn’t fall at the first blow, as some seemed to expect.

In dealing with the negative and weakening things that happen here, we shouldn’t forget what happens in other places. The imperialists are getting beat right around the world because the liberation fighters are stronger in the ways that count the most. And getting stronger, battle by battle. When we see some of our formerly active and organized parts of the left momentarily in kind pf bad shape, we have to remember that we are not the whole universe. Revolution moves on in China. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Puerto Rico, Colombia, Panama, South Africa (Azania), Guinea Bissau, Peoples Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville), Yemen. Even in the US, more people than ever have this feeling that something has gone terribly wrong here and that some profoundly good things are happening over there where people are making revolution. Within this good situation on the overall scene, we have some urgent unfinished business here.

We are only beginning to be conscious of the extent to which we are controlled and shaped by living in the empire; above all we who are white have been conditioned by super brain washing. Dealing with this has to be the first responsibility of any revolutionary movement among workers of the oppressor nation, as much or more than with other groups.

The revolutionary left in this country is largely unorganized and untogether. No group or combination has shown us how we can overcome the competitiveness, egoism, and elitism that the US is saturated with.

We see and admire the results of magnificently led and organized people of other countries. But because we have been burned a few times we are afraid to get into it. There is even sometimes a philosophy that we should let everything happen spontaneously, by itself. If the Third World people followed that thought, there would be no world-revolution for us to relate to. Which shows that this is an idea that in practice is another white US luxury trip. We would just fight when the spirit moves us – till then the world can wait, if it wants our help.

There is always a heavy danger (more for us, but not unknown in the Third World) in bureaucratic structures and elite leaderships. All the same, our only chance to build a new life is to start working hard to get some together action and collectivity and deal with our hang-ups as we go. If we don’t build our own collectivity, we will just continue to be controlled by the dictates and institutions of the enemy – which is a much worse thing – no matter how free we may imagine that we are.

People who already feel this need and are trying to come together now find some traps already waiting. There are those groups mentioned before who want to limit the movement to working for liberal reforms within the system. The CP, PL, and the Socialist Workers Party are well known for these practices. Newer groups that had some roots in the new left like RU and the New American Movement do the same but are less well known.

The processes of co-optation go through many stages and operate also in Black and Brown struggles as it did in Vietnam and in China; in these countries empire-oriented liberals and reactionaries produced Diem and Thieu in Vietnam and Chiang Kai-shek in China, while the revolution was producing Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, and Kim Il Sung. Some give way, but many stand fast and remain revolutionary all their lives. Here too, many are standing up to both the government’s repressions and to all the blandishments of Babylon, while a few are folding up.

To avoid opportunist traps and still not get into the other trap of super-left isolation, we need to think a lot about the many people who, although they are still conservative in various ways, are now moving toward the left. (Which is one reason why both Nixon and the Democrats are maneuvering desperately in this election.) What this opens to revolutionaries is to push the leftward motion further at every opportunity. When great leaps do come, they arise from a whole accumulation of experience and energy.

But a revolutionary cannot allow her/himself to become a social worker helping people get along better within the system. S/he, on the contrary, sees material and spiritual survival as depending on getting involved with more people In more forms of confrontation with the system and becoming more closely organized and collective with each other, and more in solidarity with the revolutionaries of the world.

The empire hasn’t gotten over its crisis; it’s getting in deeper. We know that when it is gone there will be awful hang-overs and putrid remains to deal with. We also see that we can create a collective society able to cope with all that.

Revolutionaries have many jobs, but it adds up to this: we have to smash the empire and the system that feeds on empire so that we will then have the opportunity to build our new human and collective life – there is no other way.

	LL on Owl City writes lyrics most fo…
	lizzie on The ‘success maker…
	gary cummings on Common Dreams? Or is it censor…
	kennetha on The Stiles Unit of Beaumont
	Cristian on Shlomo Sand and shattering a n…
	Vic Currier on Why should you attend the Denv…
	Vic Currier on Sovereign constitutional oath…
	Robyn KenyaStar Prui… on White Native Americans
	Debra Gill on The Stiles Unit of Beaumont
	Xaldyn on The ‘success maker…

Not My Tribe

The Myth of Middle Ground

Tag Archives: Nazi