---------------
1.a. The terrorist attacks in NYC and Washington are not an issue of Palestine per se, it seems to be more generally one of retribution against America and the West-in-general. It is more connected, it seems, with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia (US troops there) and, perhaps, the Gulf War, etc.

1.b. As retribution, it is not necessary for the terrorists to raise specific demands. Rather, the goal is precisely to create a further rift and separation of the "Islamic world" and "the West." This separation is sought both in the Middle-East, AND within the West -- i.e., to force Arab and South-Asian Islamic peoples within the West to be separated from the process of their ongoing cultural, social and political inclusion in the mainstream of Western countries.

1.c. Beyond immediate issues of retribution against US and western policies, the terrorist attacks are against cosmopolitanization (and/or 'westernizing') of Islamic societies. In this sense the politics and social program of these terrorists are part of a reactionary, revaunchist, 'medieval' mentality - i.e. reactionary nationalists whose nationalism encompasses the most backward forms of cultural and social oppression inside their countries -- against women, against individual liberty, against religious tolerance and secularism, etc.

1.d. Such reactionry nationalist and religio-cultural elements should never be supported as 'oppositional' to imperialism, colonialism or the difficulties of capitalist modernity in general. Modern capitalist society (the least exploitative as possible) is always preferable to these reactionary nationalist/chauvinist elements. Within their countries these religio-cultural nationalists are a throwback -- akin to the European nazi's who invoked 'ancient' Roman and 'Aryan' culture as a reaction to modern, cosmopolitan bourgeois society and its often severe contradictions. As with that movement, so too with reactionary religio-national movements in oppressed and developing countries: their origins may be 'understood,' but they are never an 'alternative' worthy of any support. As a matter of principle, national movements must achieve a threshold of social, cultural and political progress and popular democracy to be supported by progressive persons internationally.

To Index

---------------
2.a. A "war" or military/police actions to capture or undermine implicated persons and groups which is badly executed, which polarizes and harms the interests of the people of the Middle East, would further this polarization. It is almost universally realized by the people and the main government officials in the US and Europe, that this must be done intelligently and with great care, from within the broadest alliance of nation states, especially including nation states of the region.

2.b. There is no evidence that anyone currently intends to 'bomb' or 'punish' the civilians of Afghanistan. This would be counter-productive both there, and within the US and Europe where, by all accounts, much of public opinion would be revolted. A significant section of Middle eastern peoples can be expected to support intelligent, controlled, limited and justified military/police actions.

To Index

---------------
3.a. As for the terrorists' anti-people, genocidal character: How do terrorists legitimize acts such as machine gunning people in airports, suicide bombing civilians, the attack on the WTC, etc.? These attacks are legitimized by identifying the people of the US with the government and ruling circles. Bin Laden specifically declared attacks on the American people as equivelant to attacks on the US military. Hence the cause of terrorists such as these is fought not as a political and social struggle, but as a war of a people against a people. In this sense it is nationally, culturally and racially profoundly chauvinistic.

3.b. Bin Laden and other many other islamic fundamentalists, claim that 'all' the people of the US 'support' the government's policies, and that cosmopolitan, secular American society is degenerate and immoral. However, the scenes of people of diverse colors and nationalities assisting one another in the aftermath of the bombing of the WTC shows the profound diversity which has been accomplished in the US through long struggles against racial and national oppression. The attack is a foul attempt to negate this progressive reality of life in the United States for which the people have fought, and further points out the national, cultural and racial chauvinistic character of the terrorists. Even the Bush Administration, by their detailed statements in support and defense of Arab and islamic peoples in the US since the bombing, show themselves to be, objectively, infinitely more advanced on this particular point (in spite of Durbin, etc.) than the anti-people terrorists.

3.c. The terrorists' actions remind one of the aims of racist gangs in the US (esp. in 60' and 70's) who used to have a goal of inciting a 'race war' to 'separate the races' and thereby 'purify' the country. In this sense, the attack is a grand 'provocation', aimed to further polarize Islamic and Middle Eastern peoples from the West everywhere.

To Index

---------------
4.a. It has been very interesting to see how relatively sophisticated the overwhelming majority of people have been in wanting to separate the perpetrators from Muslims and Mid-East people in general, and how concerned they were that US Arabs, etc. not be blamed for this. I think some of the fears we have of how this will be read are an outgrowth of painful memories of the Iran hostage and similar events. The 'official' ideology has evolved and changed in the US since then, which, whatever the reasons (e.g. sensibilities of US allies in the Gulf War, internal demographic changes, etc.) is very good. It is striking how there are few if any talk-show hosts or government officials mouthing the chauvinist incitements they once would have. Across the country, public officials and religious leaders of other denominations have made very public visits to mosques and islamic communties to pledge their support and to denounce anti-islamic predjudice.

4.b. While one should not minimize the possibilities of spontaneous violence by backward elements, the 'official' ideology has been different now for some time. In addition, the studious avoidance of any national TV or radio announcer to attribute this to 'Arabs' or 'Muslims', etc. in general -- even right during the earliest, most uncertain moments of the attacks -- indicated that there are conscious, pre-set policies to not do this.

To Index

---------------
5.a. The optimal situation would now be that the US government's actions to find and punish the perpetrators should coincide as closely and as realistically as possible with the progressive struggles of the people of the Middle East to bring modern, democratic, humanistic, pluralistic and secular regimes to the region. If dictatorial and repressive regimes are attacked or overthrown, it should be in a way which maximally enables the indigenous democratic forces to come to power and transform their societies.

5.b. In addition, the US should commit itself to seeing that a just peace is established in Palestine/Israel, which recognizes the legitimate national aspirations of both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, treating both as equals. This will go a long way to eliminating the festering injustices which fuel resentment of the West in the area.

5.c. So too, the problem of Iraq should be solved. They should either politically and militarily support indigenous forces to overthrow the criminal Iraqi dictatorship in favor of a popular, democratic regime, or they (the US and Britain, etc.) should simply leave the area, as their present stalemate is not an answer, but rather causes untold chronic suffering to the Iraqi people and cannot be justified.

To Index

---------------
6.a. Initially the US media was not willing to discuss the extent to which oppressive and exploitative US policies abroad have contributed and continue to contribute to spontaneous generation of people feeling so hopeless as to be willing to commit such despicable acts (though, nothing of this sort is 'spontaneous'; it takes place only insofar as it is ORGANIZED by reactionary religious and class forces within the area). Nevertheless, as time passes, the discussion of these facts is actually now a prominent feature of the media and popular discussions.

6.b However, within this positive discussion, there is little or no distinction drawn by the US government and media between legitimate national, libratory struggles, (for example, by the Palestinian people against Israeli military occupation of Palestinian lands), and the reactionary, anti-modernity, anti-people and religio-ethnic chauvinist elements in the Middle East who ALSO oppose the US and Israel, but do so with the aspiration to institute reactionary regimes such as those in Iran or Afghanistan. The latter groups carry out terrorism such as in NYC or Washington, the former do not and should not lest they betray their claims to progressive nationalism and to be distinguishable from the people who oppress them.

To Index

---------------
7.a. As to the responsibility of the US Administration to secure the life and liberty of its citizens: Even _if_ one totally agrees with US policies recently vis-a-vis Israel and against the Palestinians, for example, it should still be clear that the Bush and Clinton Administrations have been extremely cavalier in their lack of concern and preparations for the possible consequences of their policies. They knew full well that there are such people as these terrorists out there (this was not the first attempt on the WTC, for example). These Administrations did not take the local reactionary nationalists seriously. Bush Administration policies were, in effect, adventurist vis-a-vis the protection of the population at home, as well as vis-a-vis the preservation of peace in the Middle-East. It's announced 'hands off policy' in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- which evolved into a 'completely support Israel' policy -- facilitated Sharon to tear up the agreements Israel had signed in Oslo. Considered together with the festering problems of fundamentalist regimes such as in Kabul, of reactionary military governments and the atmosphere in Pakistan, etc., this Bush Administration policy was executed without properly preparing for the possible consequences for the people in the US (or in the Middle East).

7.b. Instead Secretary of Defense Rhumsfield and his wealthy cronies were excited about the prospects of getting billions of dollars for their high-tech missile defense boondoggle, and Bush traveled the world twisting arms in Europe and Russia to get it accepted. Condi Rice had time to go to Moscow to lobby Putin for the big boondoggle, but she and C. Powell had almost no time for keeping Sharon civil. In retrospect it should be clear how simply stupid, arrogant, cavalier and greedy this cabal has been. One hopes they will, at least, be a bit more focused now on the actual national interests -- that is, the interests of the people-in-general, and not simply those of their wealthy cronies. Compared to missile 'defense' there isn't a lot of money to be made on domestic anti-terrorist measures, nor in making the politically hard choices needed to reign in Israel and establish a just peace of progressive, democratic regimes in the Middle East, but this is a more sane definition of national interests.

To Index

---------------
8.a. One other striking thing is that there really are no answers yet to many of the new questions raised by this attack. Many issues remain open, and one has to deal with that unsettling situation.