You must log in or register to comment.


leftous wrote (edited )

I found this very interesting and well put. However, I was wondering who this Wayne Price guy he mentioned was, so I looked it up. Price made a response to Gordon. I actually tend to agree with Price on this point that, as anarchists, we are not confined to the approaches Gordon presents. Price brings up that ultimately what anarchists should support in this case is self-determination:

Support for self-determination is quite different. It implies that out of solidarity we defend Palestinians getting the solution they want, because they want it, even though we anarchists would not make this choice. Similarly, we defend the freedom of workers to join the union of their choice, even though we are likely to oppose most business unions. We defend people’s legal right to vote, as against dictatorships, even though we are anti-electoralists. We defend the legal right to divorce, even though we neither advocate that any particular couples break up nor support bourgeois marriage. In brief, anarchists should defend oppressed people’s freedom to make choices, without having to agree with the choices they pick. Making their own choices is how people (and peoples, and classes) learn.


Dumai wrote (edited )

on the other hand:

I suggest an alternate approach based on defending national self-determination while opposing nationalism.

what the hell does this mean. like, if price defends "national self-determination" (or even thinks such a concept is intelligible) then he is supporting nationalism! that is literally what the ideology entails! and kind of weird since he argues earlier in his piece that it's practically unfeasible in the case of palestine anyway?

and he doesn't really answer gordon's question of what an anarchist is actually meant to do with their "support", and how this support is in anyway meaningful, or anarchist for that matter. passages like this lead me to believe he thinks part of gordon's challenge is simply a question of moral support:

Again he quotes me: “We must support the resistance of the Palestinian people. They have the right to self-determination, that is, to choose their leaders, their programs, and their methods of struggle, whatever we think.” (quoted on p. 151)

Gordon again goes ballistic, calling this passage, “A blank check, then, to suicide bombings and any present or future Palestinian elite.” (p. 151) But as the last phrase (“whatever we think”) should make clear, supporting the Palestinians’ resistance and self-determination does not mean that we have to agree with their leaders, programs, or methods of struggle.

which is... absolutely not what the issue is here, why would he think that


leftous wrote

I don't see Price defending nationalism. All anarchists push for self-determination. If I see a Christian or Muslim being prosecuted and I physically, morally, or defend them otherwise - does that mean I support the domination inherent in religion? Of course not. I oppose all forms of hierarchy and domination. I take people at their individual level, where they are being oppressed, and defend them while trying to weaken the oppressor. Another example of defense in the Palestinian example in this sense would be BDS of companies that enable the occupation.

Overall I just find the approaches Uri presents as not in line with my own anarchist thinking on this issue.