by International Minister

The governing party of Palestine Hamas cannot pay 160,000 salaries that are overdue two months because of U.$. financial power. Even more surprisingly, if donors try to go around Hamas and pay Palestinians directly, it turns out that they cannot do that either.

Various countries such as Qatar, Iran and Russia have the money to pay for Palestinian salaries cut by the united $tates and European Union to spite the nationalist Muslims of Hamas, but they cannot deliver it to the employees because of financial ineptitude. The Arab League alone has $70 million sitting around untransferred to the Palestinians(1) who the imperialists are trying to starve into pressuring Hamas. The Arab League has the bank account numbers for the people who need to be paid and it has the money, but it has no bank willing to do the job.

Banks afraid of losing the right to do business with the united $tates won't touch money for the Palestinians, because of u.$. laws against the Hamas so- called terrorists just elected to run the new Palestinian government. As MIM has pointed out before u.$. imperialism always respects democratic elections unless its candidate loses--one reason democracy is phony.

Hardly ever was there a better demonstration of the power of finance capital. Not even France seems able to deliver actual money to Palestinians. France and England have called for the World Bank to do it,(2) but as of May 7, the united $tates was not going along. On the other hand, the list of donors ready to replace the united $tates and European Union continues to get longer and longer.

At this point, the question is still political. Enough political votes, and the World Bank will have to go the English and French way, because the united $tates does not have a majority of the voting rights involved.(3) The most the united $tates has in a World Bank fund is 23.66% of the voting rights. By going to the World Bank, England and others may find that Palestine voting rights are 0% for the united $tates, because it wants to contribute no funds. Then if the united $tates wanted to take legal action, it would be doing so against everyone working in the World Bank fund so created. Imperialists also have their world trade laws against uncompetitive acts such as those of the united $tates ruling out business with so-called terrorists. However, the true bourgeois would have to be willing to take on the united $tates and win--a revealing truth about the bourgeois dogmas.

The Russians have adopted their own measures in the meanwhile. France and England are refusing to recognize Hamas or the PLO which lost the election by trying to administer Palestinian salaries directly from a World Bank fund, a political conglomeration with various imperialist interests dominating. In contrast, the Russians just delivered $10 million in humynitarian aid that the PLO distributed.(4) It's a gesture that is apparently unconnected to salaries and also not recognizing the Palestinian election of Hamas.

On a theoretical plane, the u.$. victory with its strategy of starving Palestine thus far is so complete, that even Lenin's theory of imperialism finds itself embarrassed. Surely there must be some imperialist somewhere willing to take the banking business and do the deal with the Palestinians, according to Lenin's theory of imperialism. Thus far, Uncle $am's power over Palestine goes even beyond Leninist theory.

One would think there would be a bank with a solid reputation not unwilling to offend the united $tates. In fact, no there is not yet, so the real ability of China, Russia and potentially even France to differ with the united $tates appears limited so far. The answer could be a national bank of a country with nuclear weapons to defend itself against u.$. court type actions. On the other hand, even Russia might feel it has more at stake to lose in the u.$. economy than to gain from setting up a bank to handle the Palestinian question and other such questions that come along.

Thus, there is an inherent logic that to be an independent imperialist in serious contention with the united $tates, one must be willing to give up business inside u.$. borders--perhaps even sacrifice all a country's assets there. Then one must be prepared to defend one's interests against the arm of u.$. law. MIM pointed out recently in a review of her book that lawyer Catharine MacKinnon has made this problem worse by taking Serbian war criminals to court in the united $tates instead of the World Court or instead of agitating for improved international law. By doing so, she uses Bosnian wimmin to advance her own imperial privilege.

After two months without receiving salaries in Palestine, it appears that Hamas is caving in. One proposal has Hamas joining the PLO which already recognized I$rael.(5) The united $tates claims it is boycotting Hamas because of its terrorism and refusal to deal with I$rael as a legitimate state.

The extremism of the u.$. position is that not only does it cut off its own aid to Palestinian refugees, but also it prevents other countries from delivering aid--and all this with respect to a government that just won an election. Palestine is an excellent example of how imperialism really works. If there really is imperialist rivalry, we will see Palestinians get their salaries via imperialists that went around the united $tates somehow. Otherwise, chalk one up against us followers of Lenin. It would be a case of the ineptitude of U.$. rivals overwhelming everything else.

In theory terms, so-called terrorism is becoming just another means of unfair business competition. In colonial times, many countries in the world could do business with only one mother country. Now there is more interpenetration of imperialist capital, intertwining of business ties. Nonetheless, even this interpenetration is benefitting one imperialist power on the Palestine question--the united $tates, because no other country can do anything other than through the united $tates. This is just another example why libertarian theories of capitalism and humyn rights are pipe dreams without communism first. There is not going to be capitalism without wars and terrorism and there never has been, so ultimately, "political interference" as naive libertarians call it is inevitable. The only question is whose political interference.

The imperialist media are trying to paint the demonstrations and strikes May 6th in Palestine regarding salary non-payment as against Hamas. Forbes ran an edition of an AP article quoting one Palestinian womyn as upset with her own government. The article on ABC News implies the same, but scrutiny of a picture shows that Palestinian wimmin and children are actually protesting the blockade imposed on Palestine.(6)

Once again, the imperialists are trying to get to the oppressed nation wimmin first, especially the Islamic wimmin. Robin Morgan is a famous pseudo-feminist of NOW (National Organization for Women) and Ms. Magazine fame. The imperialists now go to Palestine with the Robin Morgan line about men making war and wimmin being practical, thus being justified in blaming their own men for being in a war for self-determination. (Morgan opposes all national liberation openly as she tours Palestine.) Her previous tours of Palestine are now amplifying the power of the u.$. blockade of Palestine, because the imperialists can point to wimmin who are protesting against their own men as if they were to blame for the war and salary disruptions. Without Robin Morgans, Uncle $am would twist Palestinian arms on salaries and maybe no one would say "uncle." Thus Robin Morgan's work, softened the grounds, prepared the way for Uncle $am's effectiveness in starving the Palestinians and encourages Uncle $am to do it again, since it produced results this time, at least somewhat so far in this struggle.

Had Palestinian wimmin's own men been an international superpower, these Palestinian wimmin would not have had to have demonstrated. In that situation, wimmin should be clear they are rewarding the power of more powerful men if they demonstrate against Hamas and not Uncle $am. Far from being a blow against patriarchy, the Morgan solution accentuates patriarchy by tying Palestinian wimmin to an alliance with u.$ men. Rich men getting the wimmin is the oldest story in patriarchy, one abetted by Robin Morgan. Nor is demonstrating against both Uncle $am and Hamas the solution, when one is obviously the real source of the problem. Pseudo-feminists on the Iran question are preparing for war on Iran and pseudo-feminists on the Palestine question are helping Uncle $am starve Palestinians into grateful submission for charity. No people should have to depend on charity from imperialists. It is a humyn right, a right of self-determination to have one's own nation and economy. Siding with the united $tates does not help in that struggle for Palestine.

Notes:
1. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/64B2432D-BCAE-4E98-9C8B- 59C7C8D152C9.htm http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/03/news/mideast.php ;
2. Adam Entous, "Britain denies trust fund would hurt Hamas boycott," http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05- 07T030309Z_01_L07725134_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-BRITAIN.xml&archived=False ; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060428.wfranpale0428/BNStor y/International/
3. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/BODEXT/0,,conte ntMDK:20124818~menuPK:64020035~pagePK:64020054~piPK:64020408~theSitePK:278036,00 .html
4. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/712897.html
5. A "democratic socialist" Jewish newspaper in New York, http://www.forward.com/articles/7739
6. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1932795&page=1