The Militant(logo) 
    Vol.63/No.4           February 1, 1999 
 
 
Letters  

An Israeli Bonapartist?
An item in the "In Brief" section of the January 11 issue of the Militant reports that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been forced to agree to elections for that office early this year, due to the growing political and economic instability in that country. The article mentions that one of Netanyahu opponents would likely be former chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, Lt. Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak. A January 7 article in the Miami Herald by Tel Aviv correspondent Nomi Morris on Shahak's election campaign was headlined "Israeli ex-soldier runs to lead a country `at war with itself,'" After reading this article, it seem to me that this campaign has a number of parallels with the Hugo Chavez election campaign in Venezuela.

Shahak, Morris writes, is "launching a new political movement with the stated ambitions of reviving the deadlocked peace process and easing the country's economic and social crises." Though a veteran of the same commando unit as both Netanyahu and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak, Shahak has attacked both Likud and Labor. "Today a new movement is beginning, with me at its head," Shahak explained at a press conference announcing his bid for prime minister. "I have come to enlist again, as a civilian, to defend Israel during one of it's most difficult periods, [threatened] not only from the outside, but from the inside." His party still has no name, no clearly articulated program, and no list of running mates.

Shahak directly blames the Netanyahu government for "a deep crisis in the fabric of Israeli life" - a crisis only he can cure. Whether or not his election campaign develops into a full- blown Bonapartism like that of Chavez, it bears watching.

Bill Kalman,

Miami, Florida

FBI vs. pro-choice activists
It's useful for Militant readers to know about a recent probe by the FBI here in Cleveland. Two local abortion rights activists were targeted following the October 23 murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian in Amherst, New York.

The probe began after Robert Stauber and Michael "Malikee" Gingerich went to Buffalo to attend a vigil for Dr. Slepian the day after his murder. They mistakenly thought the vigil was being held at Slepian's home, and were confronted by Amherst cops. The cops demanded their identification, recorded the license number of their car, and directed them to the vigil location. The two men went to the vigil with a banner from the group Refuse and Resist!

FBI agents soon visited the home of the woman who lent them her car to go to the vigil, saying she would be charged as an accessory to murder if she did not cooperate in the investigation of Stauber and Gingerich. When she refused to answer their questions, the agents began visiting her neighbors.

When both men learned they were being investigated, they contacted an attorney, Mark Kaiser. On November 19, three agents went to Kaiser's home, knowing he was not there, and confronted his wife.

Stauber and Gingerich were the subjects of a nationwide alert released by the FBI on November 20. According to the Associated Press, the FBI press release read, "There are two more men [the FBI] think might have information about the sniper slaying of Dr. Barnett Slepian. The FBI office in Cleveland asked police across the country Friday to look for Donald Stauber and Michael Gingerich."

The alert was issued even though the FBI knew the whereabouts of both men. Stauber and his attorney had met with FBI agents that day at an East Cleveland restaurant. During the meeting Stauber refused to answer questions from the federal cops.

Gingerich and Stauber held a news conference at the Cleveland federal building November 24, demanding that the FBI issue a statement that they are not being sought and that there is no "be on the lookout" order in effect. They are also demanding an apology from the FBI.

Kevin Dwire

Cleveland, Ohio

Thanks to the `Militant'
I have recently renewed my subscription to the Militant, after an almost two-year span wherein I had taken a look at other "leftist" publications by others referring to themselves as "Communists."

It was at best enlightening, and at worst, discouraging to have been appraised that not all who say they represent and are fighting for the working class actually do practice the unity, tolerance, and acceptance that they preach.

Rather than talking about the working class in a heavily politicized, rhetoric slanted towards the bourgeoisie (as is found in the literature of other "Communist" parties) the Militant appears to speak from the viewpoint of the working class and directs its reportage to the workers themselves. This is not only refreshing, it's very uplifting, encouraging, and is honestly appreciated by someone like myself, who had, frankly, all but given up on equating "communism" with "honesty." Thanks to the Militant and its "of, by, and for" the working class reportage, I am once again able to realize the difference between false "leftists" and actual progressives.

Jessica Monique McDonald

Inkster, Michigan

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.

 
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home