Islamic and Leftist Anti-imperialists unite

[AIM Correspondent]

Islamic and Leftist Anti-imperialists unite

From January 16 to 18 an international gathering of trend-setting importance took place in Beirut, Lebanon. About 1.000 delegates from Lebanon, the Arab world, Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia from the most divers resistance organisations found together in the “Beirut International Forum for Resistance, Anti-imperialism, Peoples’ Solidarity and Alternatives” vibrantly exchanging experiences and forging a common struggle.

In the opening session Hezbollah’s deputy-secretary Sheik Naim Kassem excellently expressed the common spirit: Today there are only two camps in the world. The one of US imperialism and its allies and the other one of the resistances regardless of their ideological, cultural or religious affiliation. The resistances must be unified against its common enemy which is only possible by respecting the diversity.

http://www.antiimperialista.org/images/Beirut-2009_176%20Kopie.jpg
Hezbollah’s deputy-secretary Sheik Naim Kassem

All of the speakers from the European anti-war and anti-imperialist movements, from Venezuela (which had a massive presence), form India and even from the United States in person of former US attorney general Ramsey Clark strongly confirmed this idea of an anti-imperialist alliance – which is an achievement of utmost importance. Only some years back this had been unthinkable. The resistance movements were mistrusted especially the Islamic ones and the Western antagonist forces still believed to play a global protagonist role.

Although planned long ahead of the Zionist aggression on Gaza, the entire event was marked by the deep support to the Palestinian resistance struggle in Gaza. Nobody, also the forces from non-Islamic countries, took the leadership by Hamas as a pretext to reject the support to the resistance as it had been common in the past. On the contrary, also in Europe massive solidarity demonstration with Gaza with hundreds of thousand participants took place indicating a clear shift in important sections of the antagonist forces. (Which should not deceive us from the fact of a powerful and growing anti-Islamic campaign and sentiment in the West.)

http://www.antiimperialista.org/images/Beirut-2009_205%20Kopie.jpg
Spokesman of Hamas Osama Hamdan

An indicator for the changed climate in favour of anti-imperialism was the participation of what could be called the left wing of the Social Forum. One should recall the times when the vicious formula “no war, no terror” was predominant equating imperialism with the resistances and taking “politically correct” equidistance. Those forces which still hold such a position have decisively lost their influence and do no more lead mass movements.

Careful participants of the Beirut Forum could, however, notice a certain wariness of the organisers to lend the same support to the Iraqi and Afghan resistance as they do for Palestine. This is due to the interests of Iran as a regional power which do conflict with these resistances. In this sense the message by the Iranian president to the forum rightly denouncing the Arab regimes which follow Israeli and US interest as traitors appears somewhat vapid given Iran’s record of support to the Iraqi regime installed by the US occupiers.

http://www.antiimperialista.org/images/Beirut-2009_368%20Kopie.jpg
Leila Khaled from the PFLP

Next steps

The signal sent by this conference to form an international anti-imperialist front was already very bold given the fact that it was the first such event of that scale. Nevertheless the organisers were keen to develop some concrete agreements for the next steps. It is clear that new activities and meetings will be needed to go ahead on that track. As Anti-imperialist Camp we draw following conclusions and put forward following proposals in the spirit of the forum:

1) Insist on the campaign to boycott Israel on all levels.

2) Send brigades and delegations to Gaza and other places of resistance to build solidarity from below and allow a direct touch to the reality on the ground in order to counter the distortions of the Western corporate media.

3) Hold an anti-imperialist conference in support of the resistances in Europe as a continuation of Beirut forum. The main axis could be:
a) give voice to the resistances
b) rebuff raging Islamophobia which provides the ideological backing to the ongoing imperialist war
c) propose as the only solution to the Palestinian problem on single democratic state.

4) Build a permanent but open body of global co-ordination of anti-imperialist forces.

Anti-imperialist Camp
January 24, 2009

http://www.antiimperialista.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5975&Itemid=244

[jake williams]

This is good to see, and there's lots to talk about. Just out of curiosity (if you're willing to say), what's your own background/perspective on this?

[Blackscare]

OH GOD.

Yea, teaming up with religious wackos, that'll be a GREAT PR move.

[Paradox]

This seems to be a very popular subject at the moment. What's with all these support Hamas/Hezbollah/etc. topics going on right now?

[Enragé]

OH GOD.

Yea, teaming up with religious wackos, that'll be a GREAT PR move.

damn, we're anarchists and communists, those bent on creating chaos and authoritarian bastards in the eyes of those who own the media.. who gives a fuck?

Also, yes, this is a great PR move, in the middle east.

Anyway, its good to see this as long as the leftist groups keep their ideological distance. I understand and support the need to come together to fight the imperialist stranglehold of the world, and the way in which this allows us to contact the islamist rank 'n file and try to sway large parts of them to our positions. Islamist groups like HAMAS and Hizb'allah are truly mass movements, popular movements, and therefore to ignore them or be hostile towards them even when there is common ground to work on would be a grave mistake, since it would alienate the rank 'n file of those movements (who have good reasons for being part of those organisations, even if it were just for the simple fact that they are the only ones who resist the things that fuck up their lives).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why haven't leftists raised the popularization of Islamic banking to move Muslims away from reactionary social positions?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/equity-vs-interest-t90921/index.html

[Paradox]

Islamist groups like HAMAS and Hizb'allah are truly mass movements, popular movements, and therefore to ignore them or be hostile towards them even when there is common ground to work on would be a grave mistake

I don't think anyone is suggesting that one should ignore these movements. You'd be hard pressed to do so. Nonetheless, to suggest we should not be hostile towards them because of some small patch of possibly common ground is, I think, wrong. It is one thing to recognize the seeming strength and popularity of these reactionary groups. It is an entirely different thing to suggest that because they are anti-imperialist we should support these reactionary groups. You don't need to support Hamas or a similar group in order to support the anti-imperialist cause, much less to disseminate information about the international working class cause. Indeed, this suggests that because of the great support the working people of the United States gave Obama in the form of his election, we as members of the revolutionary working class movement should not criticize Obama for the fraud and false hope he is, at the risk of alienating those working class individuals who expressed their interests through their votes for him. Such a path will only stall a true working class movement.

[Enragé]

It is one thing to recognize the seeming strength and popularity of these reactionary groups. It is an entirely different thing to suggest that because they are anti-imperialist we should support these reactionary groups

Seperated from eachother, you're right, but when you have an organisation with such popularity, such a huge number of rank 'n file who IN ADDITION TO THIS have common ground with us on the field of anti-imperialism, we should work together with them (whilst never ignoring our differences, and continuing our critique of aspects of those organisations) in order to stay in touch with their working class rank 'n file so that we can sway them to our position.


Indeed, this suggests that because of the great support the working people of the United States gave Obama in the form of his election, we as members of the revolutionary working class movement should not criticize Obama for the fraud and false hope he is, at the risk of alienating those working class individuals who expressed their interests through their votes for him.

No, you're missing my point. Im not saying stop criticising, im saying work together with them on the common ground we have with them whilst continually undermining their leadership in trying to dissuade the rank 'n file from islamist politics (which is possible only in common struggle with them since that is where the flaws of islamism, and obama's sad excuse for social reformism, come out into the open).

[Edelweiss]

I'm wondering, does Ahmadinejad even know and distinguishes if he is just meeting some phony, European "leftist", or German neo-Nazis at his conferences (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2262352,00.html)...

"Political Islam and leftists unite" - what a betrayal.

[Paradox]

Seperated from eachother, you're right, but when you have an organisation with such popularity, such a huge number of rank 'n file who IN ADDITION TO THIS have common ground with us on the field of anti-imperialism, we should work together with them (whilst never ignoring our differences, and continuing our critique of aspects of those organisations) in order to stay in touch with their working class rank 'n file so that we can sway them to our position.

Why must you support a reactionary group in order to reach the working class? It's argued that in Palestine for example, Hamas is all there is. So it's not necessarily that the Palestinians joining Hamas agree with with the group's reactionary politics, it's that they apparently have no other outlet. If this is the case (and considering that Hamas, regardless of any social programs it might have, terrorizes working class people), why not just work to form a new and separate anti-imperialist organization without all the reactionary non-sense? There's obviously a base for it.


No, you're missing my point. Im not saying stop criticising, im saying work together with them on the common ground we have with them whilst continually undermining their leadership in trying to dissuade the rank 'n file from islamist politics (which is possible only in common struggle with them since that is where the flaws of islamism, and obama's sad excuse for social reformism, come out into the open).

But doesn't one's collaboration with them, regardless of his or her strategic goals, just add strength to that reactionary group's politics? One might wish to sway the rank and file, but by actively and openly supporting the group on whatever grounds (anti-imperialism), does that not give free and unjustifiable advertisement to that group's horrible track record on everything from women and antisemitism, to the working class itself?

[Enragé]

Why must you support a reactionary group in order to reach the working class?

You don't, you join them in the fight where you have common ground (e.g anti-imperialism)


Hamas is all there is. So it's not necessarily that the Palestinians joining Hamas agree with with the group's reactionary politics, it's that they apparently have no other outlet

That simply not true, though hamas is the largest and most powerful group to resist the Israeli occupation and also has a large social security program.


why not just work to form a new and separate anti-imperialist organization without all the reactionary non-sense? There's obviously a base for it.


There are such organizations already. The point here is not in whether you should join Hamas, which obviously no sane leftist would, but on whether or not you should work together on areas where you have common ground, for which there is no reason why you shouldnt as long as you do it correctly (its not an issue of entrism, its an issue of a united front).


But doesn't one's collaboration with them, regardless of his or her strategic goals, just add strength to that reactionary group's politics?

On the point of anti-imperialism, it does, it strengthens the cause of anti-imperialism, but on the other aspects of the group's politics it does not. For example, how could Hamas get to its own members so far as to support repressive action against revolutionary organisations which have fought alongside them against israel, especially since personal contacts with the hamas rank 'n file are established during the common struggle against imperialism? In fact, not working with reactionary groups like Hamas will only isolate us from the Hamas rank 'n file, make them vulnerable to anti-leftist propaganda, and weaken the position of the revolutionary organisations.


does that not give free and unjustifiable advertisement to that group's horrible track record on everything from women and antisemitism, to the working class itself?


Not if you go about it correctly, which ofcourse i don't know if the revolutionary/leftist groups are doing that in this case. If they don't, they're leading themselves into an 1979 Iran type of situation. However, not working together with islamist groups has the same effect (the situation prior to the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran was a revolutionary one, with the revolutionary organisations however vacillating between either uncritically following the islamists and being extremely sectarian thus alienating themselves from the islamist rank n file)

[Paradox]

You don't, you join them in the fight where you have common ground (e.g anti-imperialism)What exactly does this "join them in the fight" comment mean? If it means collaborating with them, either with ideas or resources, even if only in the sphere of anti-imperialism, how is that not supporting that group?


That simply not true, though hamas is the largest and most powerful group to resist the Israeli occupation and also has a large social security program.

There are such organizations already. The point here is not in whether you should join Hamas, which obviously no sane leftist would, but on whether or not you should work together on areas where you have common ground, for which there is no reason why you shouldnt as long as you do it correctly (its not an issue of entrism, its an issue of a united front).Then why not just work with and support these other anti-imperialist groups and avoid the reactionaries in groups like Hamas? You've said that working with them on the common ground of anti-imperialism doesn't mean that one is not critical of the group's horrendous politics, and that hostility toward them would alienate their working class base. But, if one is working with these other non-reactionary groups who are decidedly anti-imperialist, how could those in Hamas who are there simply because of anti-imperialism and not the group's deeper political stance be alienated by an active, hostile position to Hamas' antisemitism and other views when they are anti-imperialist? Only those who are truly antisemitic, misogynist, homophobic, etc. would be turned off by such an organization.


In fact, not working with reactionary groups like Hamas will only isolate us from the Hamas rank 'n file, make them vulnerable to anti-leftist propaganda, and weaken the position of the revolutionary organisations.So where is the line drawn? Should leftists also work with Osama bin Laden? How is the killing of innocent, working class people an acceptable "collateral damage" in working with groups like these under the common banner of anti-imperialism or anything else?


Not if you go about it correctlyHow exactly does one go about this correctly? And how do you explain support for Hamas under the banner of anti-imperialism to the working class people in Israel who leftists are also trying to bring into the working class struggle?

[brigadista]

I am not meaning to trivialise the debate ,but it is nice to see a picture of Leila Khaled now .. I tried to post a picture of how she was but i haven't enough posts yet..

[Enragé]

What exactly does this "join them in the fight" comment mean? If it means collaborating with them, either with ideas or resources, even if only in the sphere of anti-imperialism, how is that not supporting that group?

It means when they take up arms against Israeli occupation you do so as well, it means when they are defending the gaza strip from israeli attack you stand beside them, and you co-ordinate your actions with theirs so that the resistance is most efficient (which is what the idea is of this "unity" between islamic and leftist anti-imperialists is all about). For us in the west it means that when israel attacks, we pressure our governments to condemn the israeli assault and stop supporting it by weapon shipments.


Then why not just work with and support these other anti-imperialist groups and avoid the reactionaries in groups like Hamas? You've said that working with them on the common ground of anti-imperialism doesn't mean that one is not critical of the group's horrendous politics, and that hostility toward them would alienate their working class base. But, if one is working with these other non-reactionary groups who are decidedly anti-imperialist, how could those in Hamas who are there simply because of anti-imperialism and not the group's deeper political stance be alienated by an active, hostile position to Hamas' antisemitism and other views when they are anti-imperialist? Only those who are truly antisemitic, misogynist, homophobic, etc. would be turned off by such an organization.


Because Hamas is simply the first organisation you join, "de eerste de beste" in dutch ("the first the best" literally). For an a-political youth, what's the first thing he sees? A big organisation who fights occupation and takes care of its people through social security programmes. So, he joins them. He doesnt see the PFLP first, a much smaller leftist group. So what does the PFLP do? They work together with Hamas where they have common ground while continuing their critique of Hamas' overall politics.

Also, Hamas is not anti-semitic, plain and simple.


So where is the line drawn? Should leftists also work with Osama bin Laden?

No, bin laden does not have a mass (organized) support, for one because his tactics are anti-thetical to mass movement. If we would work with osama we wouldnt get an inch closer to those who have sympathies with him, its underground, its terrorist (Hamas isnt terrorist in my view, its pure desperation but more on that later), it achieves nothing.


How is the killing of innocent, working class people an acceptable "collateral damage" in working with groups like these under the common banner of anti-imperialism or anything else?


The fireworks fired at colonists are acts of desperation, and frankly, if they dont want to get shot at the colonists should fuck off. Suicide bombers are acts of desperation to, there's no coherent idea of frightening the israeli's into changing their political stance (i.e its not terrorism), its simply using what they have against an extremely overwhelming foe (the extent to which the Israeli's are Goliath and the palestinians a puny David cant be overestimated).


How exactly does one go about this correctly?

Never stopping the critique of political islam while continuing to work together on common ground, not dissolving yourself into islamist organisations.


And how do you explain support for Hamas under the banner of anti-imperialism to the working class people in Israel who leftists are also trying to bring into the working class struggle?


The same way i explain my support of Hamas to people outside Israel. The occupation has to end, Hamas has time and again stated that a 2-state solution for them is acceptable (tho i myself am against a 2-state solution), Hamas does not want to wipe out the jews, what Hamas and other resistance groups are doing are acts of desperation, and the people in the refugee camps in Gaza used to live where now there are the settlements of Ashdod, Sderot, etc, so if a few "missiles" which use fertilizer (!) as explosives fall on their heads, thats their own fucking fault (children ofcourse excluded from this, but i blame their parents not Hamas, Jihad, PFLP etc)

[Enragé]

I am not meaning to trivialise the debate ,but it is nice to see a picture of Leila Khaled now .. I tried to post a picture of how she was but i haven't enough posts yet..

such a beautiful woman :wub:

[brigadista]

Thanks!!!!!!

[brigadista]

"anti semitic" Arabs are semitic people by definition -this term has been hi jacked

[Merces]

Well islam is fucked like any other religions, and advocates violence... Yeah why not join forces with those wackjobs to promote peace. Its done very well in europe and every were else.

[Rangi]

The dangers of ideologically opposed sides supporting different factions in a proxy war has been demonstrated before in history. Israel is committing war crimes with the help of the USA. 1200 men, women and children are dead for the loss of ten Israelis who were mostly soldiers.

The Palestinian people are carrying the burden for international political disharmony and they are paying for it in blood.

Statements such as "All religious people are whack-jobs" are completely unhelpful.

Do you think you would have had the same set of morals and ethics you have now if you were brought up in an Islamic family that lived under Sharia law?

Have some empathy for people who are not so privileged as you and may not have had a secular middle class upbringing.

[Comrade B]

advocates violence
this is a load of bull shit.
The Koran advocates violence no more than any other religion, there are also rules against throwing the first punch and fighting on holy ground. Those that Allah supports his followers fight against are the unbelievers, which are not simply those that do not follow Islam, but a sort of "anti-Christ" figure which wishes to wipe out Islam. An example of this would be a crusader. Not the average man, but genocidal nut jobs.

[SocialRealist]

We must support this to a certain degree. To the degree that there will not be unconditional support for certain extremist religious entities.

If we show unconditional support, we will put ourselves to the same set of radical religious beliefs we attempt to protect ourselves at home from. Instead what I propose is a plan to oppose "imperialist" aggressions from a different set of methods, what is needed will be a entity that should oppose the aggressions and actions whilst making itself understood as to not being a supporter of violent and up front actions instead it will just be a group that aligns with the community suffering the actions that has come faced to them.

[Devrim]

The opening statement bravely announces that today class antagonisms are no longer the major factor:
In the opening session Hezbollah’s deputy-secretary Sheik Naim Kassem excellently expressed the common spirit: Today there are only two camps in the world. The one of US imperialism and its allies and the other one of the resistances regardless of their ideological, cultural or religious affiliation. The resistances must be unified against its common enemy which is only possible by respecting the diversity.

Everything is subordinate to the struggle against the 'common enemy'. Given that and considering that this conference was supported by both the Iranian and Syrian states, one would think that the leftists would be more careful about who they are supporting.

Unfortunately they are not.

I think that the main think that it shows is that the Iranian regime has a better understanding of politics than the leftists at this conference.

Devrim

[Merces]

this is a load of bull shit.
The Koran advocates violence no more than any other religion, there are also rules against throwing the first punch and fighting on holy ground. Those that Allah supports his followers fight against are the unbelievers, which are not simply those that do not follow Islam, but a sort of "anti-Christ" figure which wishes to wipe out Islam. An example of this would be a crusader. Not the average man, but genocidal nut jobs.

Well then may "Allah" smite me down. Only difference between your religion and and another one lets say scientology is at least they don't murder anyone who doesn't bow down to a false reality. Speaking of which isn't there group advocating sharia or whatever the fuck its called in Britian?

[Comrade B]

The religion is not what kills people, those that manipulate it are the ones that kill people. The Koran recognizes that there will be those that claim that Allah has said things only for the purpose of power, and they are also considered unbelievers.
Also, who said I was Muslim?