In the 1930s, the left in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis adjusted its strategic policy to take into account the rise of German fascism abroad and the growth of plutocratic right wing extremism at home – not to mention an exploding economic crisis. But what goes unmentioned is the effectiveness of those strategic adjustments by the left (and progressive movements) at that time turned on a tactical reset as well. Without the latter, without tactics that accented cross class and multi-racial unity, the former, that is, the popular front strategy, would only limp along – sapped, as it were, of its ability to bring to life the sort of expansive, energetic, and diverse coalition that was absolutely necessary to meet the challenges of those times.

Much the same could be said today. In other words, strategic adjustments to today’s unprecedented and exceedingly dangerous circumstances are to be welcomed, but by themselves aren’t enough. What has to accompany them are matching changes at the tactical level that would facilitate the deepening and broadening of an expansive and diverse coalition and, in turn, practical action. To a degree this happened in the lead up to last fall’s election, but more, tactically speaking, needs to be done to facilitate the further building of a broad, diverse, and multi-racial coalition that matches the challenges and dangers of this moment.

(I post this on my blog every Memorial Day to remember my two friends who died in the Vietnam War. SW)

Today, I will again drink a glass of beer in memory of my two friends and their comrades who died in Vietnam.

I honor them without honoring the aggressive and unjust war in which they fought. I don’t know their reasons for joining the military, maybe it was simply that the draft gave them no choice, but it really doesn’t matter now. What I do know is that their lives were cruelly cut short.

As a young peace activist in the late 60s, I probably didn’t always make a distinction between the soldiers fighting the war and the war itself. The soldier and the general were equally responsible as I saw it. But I think differently now. I place the main responsibility for war on its architects in high places and a social system – capitalism – whose logic is to expand, dominate, and, when necessary, make war.

Ricky and Cotter were near the bottom of the food chain of war making, nothing but cannon fodder. They were working class kids whose lives didn’t count for much in our government’s war plans. Neither was born with a silver spoon in their mouths, which is why they ended up with a gun in their hands in a distant land.

I will always wonder what kind of lives they would have lived had they safely returned. With no hero’s welcome, no counseling waiting for them, no easy slide into a well paying job, I can’t help but wonder if they would have had the internal resources and external support to come to terms with their war experience and live productive lives?

After all, they were not that much different than me, and I have no confidence that I could have. It was hard enough to grow up at that time without a tour of duty in Vietnam on my emotional resume. I wish, though, that they had that chance. I wish their lives hadn’t been senselessly erased doing things that no one should do. I wish they had the opportunity to live long and joyful lives.

I miss them. I celebrate them. They were “my buddies.” I wish they could join me for a beer today, although knowing them a single beer wouldn’t quite satisfy them. Or me.

I also hope that we could toast to the millions in our generation who opposed the war as well their comrades who also never made it back from Vietnam. Both deserve to be honored.

Finally, I like to think that the three of us could clink glasses to the people of Vietnam who suffered so much during and after the war, and are now rebuilding their country in conditions of peace. Maybe that would be too much to expect. Unfortunately, I will never know. They will join me only in memory this afternoon, as I wash down a glass of beer.

In any conflict, knowing who strikes the first blow doesn’t necessarily tell us much. In nearly every instance, it is necessary to dig deeper and uncover the backstory behind it. Only then is it possible to assign responsibility for the clash to one or another side and envision what a peaceful resolution might look like.

In the case of the current violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis, a New York Times reporter uncovers the backstory to that conflict. And in my reading of it, the guilty party for this new cycle of violence, irrespective of who struck the first blow, is Netanyahu and the Israeli government and the only way to prevent its reoccurrence is to address the underlying causes of this conflict: the systematic and sustained opposition of the Israeli government to the formation of a sustainable, territorially contiguous, and independent Palestinian state, living side by side and in peace with the state of Israel.

In an article in the NYT, Anshel Pfeffer, an Israeli political commentator and biographer of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, is quoted as saying,

“Netanyahu didn’t invent the tensions between Jews and Arabs. They’ve been here since before Israel was founded. But over his long years in power, he’s stoked and exploited these tensions for political gain time and again and has now miserably failed as a leader to put out the fires when it boiled over.”

One has to wonder how much of the present outbreak of violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis is explained by the political ambitions and election maneuvering of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in his effort to hold onto power.

While not getting into the details of this new outbreak of violence between the Israel and Palestinian people, I want to make this observation: the whole notion of equivalency in this conflict between the Palestinians and the Israeli government is a dangerous falsehood that conceals the actual dynamics and lines of resolution of this violent (and reoccurring) clash.

Look at the realities: The balance of military and economic power is overwhelmingly on the Israeli side; the Palestinians have nowhere near the fire power or economic resources. A long suffering and colonized people – the Palestinians – are fighting for their independent and long denied statehood against a powerful, imperial and expansionist state whose mission is to prevent the realization of that fundamental right by all means at its disposal. Palestinian land is occupied and Israel is the occupier. Finally, the casualty lists are long and the destruction is immense on the Palestinian side, while on the other side the loss of life and damage is minimal.

In short, this isn’t a conflict between two equal adversaries with equally just claims. Don’t buy into that notion. It’s fool’s gold, meant to conceal the real dynamics in this struggle as well as forestall the only solution that stands a chance of bringing peace to both peoples in this decades long conflict – an independent, contiguous, and viable Palestinian state living side by side and in peace with its Israeli neighbor.

Addendum: Trevor Noah says it much better than I do.