Amnesty International: Both Israel and Hamas guilty of war crimes.

[skki]

The report on the most recent Gaza conflict concluded that both Hamas and Israel consciously attacked civilians.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5792182.ece

Gj SWP

[Saorsa]

Amnesty International are apologists for imperialism and this is hardly news. Everyone knows that Hamas targets Israeli civilians. However in the context of the situation in Gaza, in which the IDF are raining death on a densely packed and horribly oppressed and deprived population that resists with the occasional rocket fired by groups such as Hamas, to put out headlines making the two forces out to be equally as bad as each other and implying that they are equal with each other full stop is totally reactionary.

I don't quite understand why your having orgasms over the fact that Amnesty International has stated the obvious, that civilians are killed by the rockets Hamas fires, but find your kicks where you will...

[Wanted Man]

Great, just the excuse we needed to withhold any kind of support for the Palestinians. :rolleyes:

Funny that the main focus of the linked article is about the source of Israel's white phosphorus. But hey, nevermind that revelation. HAMAS ARE EVIL TOO!!!

[SocialRealist]

In my opinion they are both guilty of war crimes. Why should we be denying the one trouble maker whilst accepting the other? I would class the Hamas as general war criminal figures for launching their rockets into civilian areas of Israel without even a bit of remorse for their people. In this incident they may have not killed many but they certainly put these peoples lives in terror each and every day.

I think it would be good if both the Hamas and Israel were charged in the crimes that they have commited but sadly this will not happen anytime soon. What will happen with the Hamas will be that they will be thrown into the ashes of history due to the fact that the only reason they exist is for an offensive purpose. I only hope that the people of Gaza rebel against them and throw them out of their country once and for all.

[Dean]

Amnesty International are apologists for imperialism and this is hardly news. Everyone knows that Hamas targets Israeli civilians. However in the context of the situation in Gaza, in which the IDF are raining death on a densely packed and horribly oppressed and deprived population that resists with the occasional rocket fired by groups such as Hamas, to put out headlines making the two forces out to be equally as bad as each other and implying that they are equal with each other full stop is totally reactionary.

I don't quite understand why your having orgasms over the fact that Amnesty International has stated the obvious, that civilians are killed by the rockets Hamas fires, but find your kicks where you will...

I realyl dont see how AI is apologetic towards Imperialism. Furthermore, if you were mroe familiar with the organization (or had botehred to read the report), you would understand that AI emphasizes Israel's role in the conflict, the sanctions and the blocade.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I realyl dont see how AI is apologetic towards Imperialism. Furthermore, if you were mroe familiar with the organization (or had botehred to read the report), you would understand that AI emphasizes Israel's role in the conflict, the sanctions and the blocade.

You a little tipsy, Dean? You usually write better than that. ;)

I don't think AI as a pro-imperialist organization, either. It is certainly not revolutionary, but that doesn't negate its good work.

[Yehuda Stern]

Putting Hamas and Israel on the same level is monstrous, as is the insinuation that the war is Hamas' fault. Israel wanted a war, has refused and still refuses to do anything to prevent further war, and is the main cause of the violence and bloodshed in the Middle East. When AI does that, like some of the "revolutionaries" here, its rhetoric basically serves imperialism, because it attempts to distract people from the obvious disproportion between the power of the Israeli state and that of the Palestinian people.

[Pogue]

AI is not an apologist for imperialism, its an icnredibly non-biased human rights organisation, and probably one of the most trustable sources in the world.

[Bitter Ashes]

Captain Obvious and Amnesty International save the day again!
Am I missing something btw? Is there some political reason that I'm supposed to be ignoring the Hamas crimes against humanity? Because if you want to tell me that those houses those rockets were actualy hitting munitons factories, or missile silos, then I guess I'd be wrong making out Hamas to be equaly as bad.

[BobKKKindle$]

Is there some political reason that I'm supposed to be ignoring the Hamas crimes against humanity?Firstly, a war crime is not the same as a crime against humanity. The latter refers to a large-scale violation of human dignity such as Apartheid in South Africa. But to deal with the issue at hand, we should not ignore what Hamas does because that would be intellectually dishonest - but the fact that Hamas launches rockets against civilians does not make such attacks wrong, given that limited attacks against civilians have historically played an important role in forcing a oppressibe government to make concessions and drawing attention to a situation where a population is being oppressed, as in South Africa, where the ANC carried out attacks against the members of the Apartheid government, and even if we assumed that they were wrong and should not be tolerated, that does not mean we can place Hamas and Israel on an equal level, and hold them both equally responsible for the conflict. The basic issue is that however much we may disagree with Hamas, they are leading the resistance against a colonial power. Palestinians are being oppressed at the hands of the Israeli state, and they have a right to fight back, and so how can you possibly speak of Hamas and Israel as being "equally bad"?


due to the fact that the only reason they exist is for an offensive purpose.Would you care to explain how this is the case? It's an accepted fact that the number of rockets being launched by Hamas fell dramatically after the ceasefire agreement and only increased when Israel was found to have killed Palestinians near the Rafah crossing - despite the fact that Gaza was suffering from a blockade under the so-called "ceasefire". Even if we discount this, Hamas is not limited to a military organization - its role in providing social services is well-documented.

[Bitter Ashes]

I dont care how Hamas justifies it to themselves. The fact of the matter is, they went out seeking civilians to attack, purely on the basis of where they were born, or what religon they follow. Those individual civilians had not oppressed Hamas, Palestine or the bombers in any way, shape of form, yet Hammas decieded that it is they who must die or be mutilated for the percieved "sins" of the Israeli state. In my eyes, they shot Bambi.
I can gauruntee you one thing though. Given Israeli military equipment, you can bet your backside that it would be Palestine occuping Israel, destroying hospitals and restricting the Red Cross and press. That's because both participants in this have the same mindset.
So, is the winner of the "who's worse" determined purely by a death count? When does it become significant that one of these two groups of thugs is worse than the other? When they kill 100 more innocent people than the other group? A thousand? Ten thousand? When?
The fact of the matter is that both Israel and Palestine have people in power who are as mass murdering fundamentalist nutcases and the fact that Israel is more efficent in thier murdering tactics does not change a thing.

[Dean]

Putting Hamas and Israel on the same level is monstrous, as is the insinuation that the war is Hamas' fault. Israel wanted a war, has refused and still refuses to do anything to prevent further war, and is the main cause of the violence and bloodshed in the Middle East. When AI does that, like some of the "revolutionaries" here, its rhetoric basically serves imperialism, because it attempts to distract people from the obvious disproportion between the power of the Israeli state and that of the Palestinian people.

What is wrong with you people? Have you even read the report?

[Cumannach]

Yes Israel and Hamas are both law-breaking criminals. The difference is, one of them is a serial killing child rapist gangster, and the other one is a jaywalker.

[Killfacer]

Yes Israel and Hamas are both law-breaking criminals. The difference is, one of them is a serial killing child rapist gangster, and the other one is a jaywalker.

I would say one is a serial killing child rapist and one thumped an officer once.

[Orange Juche]

Yes Israel and Hamas are both law-breaking criminals. The difference is, one of them is a serial killing child rapist gangster, and the other one is a jaywalker.

Damn jaywalkers!

[Wanted Man]

AI is not an apologist for imperialism, its an icnredibly non-biased human rights organisation, and probably one of the most trustable sources in the world.
Ahh. So that's why AI stayed silent on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and booted a director who disagreed with this. Why they gave "human rights" justification for more Reagan aid to the Contras in 1986. Or why they helped pave the way for the American invasion of Iraq in 1991.

AI really is a piss poor source for this, and this thread says enough about the people who fall for them. AI has an awful track record on the Palestinian conflict. Imagine someone is being gang-raped at gunpoint. AI is the guy on the sidelines who wrings his hands and says: "In the interests of human rights, both sides should cease having sex." Or: "The rapist should be sure to use a condom".

See Paul de Rooij: http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij10132004.html and http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0004850.html

[Pogue]

Ahh. So that's why AI stayed silent on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and booted a director who disagreed with this. Why they gave "human rights" justification for more Reagan aid to the Contras in 1986. Or why they helped pave the way for the American invasion of Iraq in 1991.

AI really is a piss poor source for this, and this thread says enough about the people who fall for them. AI has an awful track record on the Palestinian conflict. Imagine someone is being gang-raped at gunpoint. AI is the guy on the sidelines who wrings his hands and says: "In the interests of human rights, both sides should cease having sex."

Whereas Hamas apologists on this forum (those who advocate giving military support, whatever the fuck that is) would say its OK to rape, as long as you were raped first and you don't rape too hard.

[BobKKKindle$]

Whereas Hamas apologists on this forum (those who advocate giving military support, whatever the fuck that is) would say its OK to rape, as long as you were raped first and you don't rape too hard.

Er, no, if you want to continue this analogy, then people such as myself would say that when you're being raped, then you should be able to do anything necessary to stop being raped, even if that involves kicking your assailant, biting him in sensitive areas, whatever, and if anyone protests that "violence is bad..just because" then we will point out that they are being entirely idealistic and failing to appreciate the complexities and inequalities of the situation.

[Wanted Man]

Whereas Hamas apologists on this forum (those who advocate giving military support, whatever the fuck that is) would say its OK to rape, as long as you were raped first and you don't rape too hard.
See, here we go again: ultimately blaming the victim. Just like AI, which proves that their "apolitical, purely focused on human rights" stance is bullshit.

Referring to Hamas "raping" anyone in retaliation to Israel "raping (Palestine) first" doesn't make any sense. Or is this an admission that Hamas represents the Palestinians as a whole (not something I believe)? Or did Israel only "rape" Hamas warriors?

[Pogue]

The Palestinians are the victims, not Hamas.

But the analogy would actually go like this:

Working class is being raped by Israel. Hamas wants to rape the working class, but because they're busy being raped by Israel, they can only do a bit of groping (like attacking the occasional strike in palestine). Hamas responds to being raped by Israel by widly carrying out a sex attack on Israel, without any real care if it happens to violate any of the working class in Israel, and without any real regard to the fact that when Israel comes to rape them back, likely the working class civilians will be raped slightly too. Hamas doesn't give a shit, because its not interested in consensual sex with the working class, just like Israel. Both just want to rape the victims, the working class.

The working class is caught between and some may go for the slightly less agressive sex attacker because that way, they wont get raped badly by Israel.

This analogy is pretty sick and I'd like to stop using it now, but it illustrates my point.

[Pogue]

And so, rather than condeming evil, anti-working class acts from anti-working class factions, for some strange reason which will never, ever actually work out how they think it will, alot of people obsessed with imperialism over anything else say we should support the smaller working class group because it 'represents' the working class.

Yes, many of the working class and ordinary vicitms of Israel in Palestine support Hamas. So what? Loads of working class people support the Labour Party, over the Conservatives. But thats no reason for us to give our support to Labour.

[Wanted Man]

The Palestinians are the victims, not Hamas.

But the analogy would actually go like this:

Working class is being raped by Israel. Hamas wants to rape the working class, but because they're busy being raped by Israel, they can only do a bit of groping (like attacking the occasional strike in palestine). Hamas responds to being raped by Israel by widly carrying out a sex attack on Israel, without any real care if it happens to violate any of the working class in Israel, and without any real regard to the fact that when Israel comes to rape them back, likely the working class civilians will be raped slightly too. Hamas doesn't give a shit, because its not interested in consensual sex with the working class, just like Israel. Both just want to rape the victims, the working class.

The working class is caught between and some may go for the slightly less agressive sex attacker because that way, they wont get raped badly by Israel.

This analogy is pretty sick and I'd like to stop using it now, but it illustrates my point.
So basically, there is no real difference between Israel and Hamas, it's just that Hamas is "slightly less aggressive".

Or at least, that's about all I could gather from this post, after reading it three times. It just doesn't make any sense.

[Sam_b]

Yes, many of the working class and ordinary vicitms of Israel in Palestine support Hamas. So what? Loads of working class people support the Labour Party, over the Conservatives. But thats no reason for us to give our support to Labour.

The last time I heard we weren't facing a genocidal massacre using chemical weapons such as white phospohorous. Trying to compare the voting patterns and popular support for an imperialist nation with that of one struggling against imperialism shows you up on this one, i'm afraid.

[Wanted Man]

And so, rather than condeming evil, anti-working class acts from anti-working class factions, for some strange reason which will never, ever actually work out how they think it will, alot of people obsessed with imperialism over anything else say we should support the smaller working class group because it 'represents' the working class.

Yes, many of the working class and ordinary vicitms of Israel in Palestine support Hamas. So what? Loads of working class people support the Labour Party, over the Conservatives. But thats no reason for us to give our support to Labour.
I really do need to express concern for you now. Are you sure you're in the right thread? The whole point of this thread is that "Hamas is just as bad as Israel", not "discuss whether Hamas should be supported or not".

Also, I'm still wondering about your claims that AI are a good source, especially on this issue. Or maybe this nonsense is supposed to distract from that little inconvenience?

[Pogue]

But the basic idea of the Hamas apologists is that they're some sort of victims, we should give military support to them, etc, because they're defending themselves. Fuck it, they have and will continue to attack workers. Rather than fucking around supporting the best of the worst (Hamas, or with my analogy, Labour) why don't you just cut the bullshit and just support the working class of all countries (rather than supporting Labour, form a new genuine workers organisation).

[Pogue]

I really do need to express concern for you now. Are you sure you're in the right thread? The whole point of this thread is that "Hamas is just as bad as Israel", not "discuss whether Hamas should be supported or not".

Also, I'm still wondering about your claims that AI are a good source, especially on this issue. Or maybe this nonsense is supposed to distract from that little inconvenience?

Well in between the bias of a BBC who refused to show a video on their channes calling for aid for Palestinians because they were scared it'd offend the ruling class and their puppet Israel, and Hamas itself and its supporters, who want it to seem like the heroic, spotless resistance whom we should all be behind, I think an NGO focusing on human rights in the one to be trusted. I think we can be pretty sure a militant anti-Semetic radical Islamist organisation which has attacked workers in the past are not going to be the sorts who really give a shit about whether or not they violate human rights or commit war crimes, and so its hardly bias or outrageous for Amnesty to conclude both sides committed crimes. Sure Israel were worse, but that doesn't excuse Hamas in the slightest, and I refuse to support such an anti-worker, and generally anti-humanity group.

[Pogue]

And if I've derailed this thread its because its almost impossible to get into a discussion about the recent conflict without having to wade through confusing and simply odd bullshit about how we should 'militarily support Hamas' or be outraged if anyone criticises them.

We're meant to be getting rod of the false conciousness which leads to people backing Hamas in conflicts such as these and showing them that this is an extension of class conflict, not a fight between heroic Hamas and Israel, with Israel being the only one worth condeming.

[x359594]

The Palestinians are the victims, not Hamas...

Correct.

Certainly Israel and the IDF are fantastically superior in strength to Hamas and have wrought destruction on the Palestinians out of proportion to the harm done to Israeli civilians by Hamas.

For better or worse the Palestinians of Gaza have chosen Hamas to represent their interests, but Hamas, as others including yourself have noted, has a regressive idolological perspective and no particular interest in advancing the cause of the working class. Even so, it does advocate for the Palestinian people, and under present conditions it deserves qualified support in my view. Hamas should certainly be held accountable for actions, but by the Palestinians it claims to represeent.

AI's report is valuable, and it's who makes use of it and for what part purposes that's important.

[Wanted Man]

Well in between the bias of a BBC who refused to show a video on their channes calling for aid for Palestinians because they were scared it'd offend the ruling class and their puppet Israel, and Hamas itself and its supporters, who want it to seem like the heroic, spotless resistance whom we should all be behind, I think an NGO focusing on human rights in the one to be trusted. I think we can be pretty sure a militant anti-Semetic radical Islamist organisation which has attacked workers in the past are not going to be the sorts who really give a shit about whether or not they violate human rights or commit war crimes, and so its hardly bias or outrageous for Amnesty to conclude both sides committed crimes. Sure Israel were worse, but that doesn't excuse Hamas in the slightest, and I refuse to support such an anti-worker, and generally anti-humanity group.
I feel like we're going in circles. Several sources confirm that AI has repeatedly refused to recognise Israel's sordid role in the conflict, and they've sacked a director who disagreed with that (by pro-zionist board members, according to this guy).

NGOs don't live in a bubble in which they are somehow detached from our society and can be impartial arbiters in armed conflicts. Not the most well-intentioned ones, and certainly not massive brands like AI, where publicity comes first, money second, recruitment third, and human rights a distant fourth.

In refusing to recognise this, there seems to be some sort of great yearning for security, for the idea that there is at least someone or something that can always be trusted.

[Pogue]

I feel like we're going in circles. Several sources confirm that AI has repeatedly refused to recognise Israel's sordid role in the conflict, and they've sacked a director who disagreed with that (by pro-zionist board members, according to this guy).

NGOs don't live in a bubble in which they are somehow detached from our society and can be impartial arbiters in armed conflicts. Not the most well-intentioned ones, and certainly not massive brands like AI, where publicity comes first, money second, recruitment third, and human rights a distant fourth.

In refusing to recognise this, there seems to be some sort of great yearning for security, for the idea that there is at least someone or something that can always be trusted.

Emphasis mine.

No, not really, I just hate the dogmatic view from those who take the 'military support to Hamas' view that if anyone criticises Hamas they're part of the bourgeois apparatus and are supporting Zionism/Israeli abuses.

[Saorsa]

Blah blah H-L-V-S rubbish "human rights" blah blah blah

There is no such thing as human rights and revolutionaries do not think in or use such ridiculous notions.

[black magick hustla]

Correct.

Certainly Israel and the IDF are fantastically superior in strength to Hamas and have wrought destruction on the Palestinians out of proportion to the harm done to Israeli civilians by Hamas.

For better or worse the Palestinians of Gaza have chosen Hamas to represent their interests, but Hamas, as others including yourself have noted, has a regressive idolological perspective and no particular interest in advancing the cause of the working class. Even so, it does advocate for the Palestinian people, and under present conditions it deserves qualified support in my view. Hamas should certainly be held accountable for actions, but by the Palestinians it claims to represeent.

AI's report is valuable, and it's who makes use of it and for what part purposes that's important.

This is liberal garbage. It doesnt matter if the mayority in a region supports or not their regional butchers- the nature of the latter does not change as if this were some sort of popularity contest. Hamas is a political murder-gang that is responsable of killing cadre of opposition parties, preventing folks on going to egyptian hospitals, and of pinning down whatever little glimpse of class action gaza has experienced. You might get all your pants wet at the sight of seeing brown people with guns, but the truth is, that these "brown people" are being martyred for nothing by a bunch of islamist scum that hide in places were the bombs are not dropping. Someoene who truly cares about the situation and the people there would support the realistic alternative, which is, trying to survive by whatever means rather than running directly to the slaughterhouse.

[black magick hustla]

its really sad when people who consider themselves "communists" support a leadership that wishes to restart some sort of stone age.

[Pogue]

There is no such thing as human rights and revolutionaries do not think in or use such ridiculous notions.

Yeh whatever. Hamas are still ****s.

[BobKKKindle$]

Yeh whatever. Hamas are still ****s.

Yet more excellent analysis here - our most r-r-r-revolutionary member of the board dismisses a group he criticizes for being reactionary with a sexist pejorative.

Since NGOs are apparently always objective and never have any ties with governments or material interests....here's some statistics from Freedom House to show that Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship which needs to be overthrown by our brave boys and replaced with an American democracy and a free-market economy!

[Saorsa]

Yeh whatever. Hamas are still ****s.

And you're a liberal idealistic idiot. Nobodies denying how shit Hamas are, but the fact remains that they are a popular resistance movement against the brutal oppression that Israel forces upon the Palestinian people. The guns of Hamas fighters (as well as those of the other resistance groups including the progressive ones like the PFLP) are all that stands between the Palestinians and the IDF, and as resistance movements they are of an objectively different character to the Labour Party and of a character more objectively worthy of support than the IDF. All but the most dogmatic types are capable of seeing this.

It is ridiculous to view Hamas as the government of a functional nation state, making this war a war between nations. Hamas is a political and military organisation dominating an overgrown concentration camp, and they are for better or worse the primary organisation defending the Palestinians from a murderous Zionist assault that will continue to attack them regardless of whether or not Hamas fires it's rockets. This in no way earns them political support for their ideology and the society they seek to build, but it should be recognised when analysing the conflict. Hamas are not as bad as Israel (if we must use such simplistic language) for the simple reason that the Palestinians they represent and militarily defend are oppressed, and the Israelis and the IDF are the oppressors.

[Pogue]

And you're a liberal idealistic idiot. Nobodies denying how shit Hamas are, but the fact remains that they are a popular resistance movement against the brutal oppression that Israel forces upon the Palestinian people. The guns of Hamas fighters (as well as those of the other resistance groups including the progressive ones like the PFLP) are all that stands between the Palestinians and the IDF, and as resistance movements they are of an objectively different character to the Labour Party and of a character more objectively worthy of support than the IDF. All but the most dogmatic types are capable of seeing this.

It is ridiculous to view Hamas as the government of a functional nation state, making this war a war between nations. Hamas is a political and military organisation dominating an overgrown concentration camp, and they are for better or worse the primary organisation defending the Palestinians from a murderous Zionist assault that will continue to attack them regardless of whether or not Hamas fires it's rockets. This in no way earns them political support for their ideology and the society they seek to build, but it should be recognised when analysing the conflict. Hamas are not as bad as Israel (if we must use such simplistic language) for the simple reason that the Palestinians they represent and militarily defend are oppressed, and the Israelis and the IDF are the oppressors.

You lost the right to use that liberal thing against me when you failed to accept my request for a debate when I tols you to prove it. I'm an anarchist and active in anarchist politics, so you fail.

Yes, Hamas are bad. They don't want to protect the Palestinains, they're happy to use them as cannon fodder. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend all that. I'm on the side of the Palestinians, thats why I've been active in this movement over recent weeks.

[Pogue]

Yet more excellent analysis here - our most r-r-r-revolutionary member of the board dismisses a group he criticizes for being reactionary with a sexist pejorative.

Since NGOs are apparently always objective and never have any ties with governments or material interests....here's some statistics from Freedom House to show that Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship which needs to be overthrown by our brave boys and replaced with an American democracy and a free-market economy!

I love how you're all chummy with me up until the point I challenge your fragile and confused analysis. Stop being so two-faced, either attack me personally all the time, be civil, or just attack my politics. I'm not going to listen to some intellectual student who is so out of touch wth ordinary people and the working class its unbelievable to continue calling me and my friends reactionary because we use words that he likes to think of as sexist. **** is one of the oldest words in the English language and is not sexist. Stop trying to get back on people who criticise your politics by merely labellng them reactionary for absurd reasons which don't fit into the world's definition of reactionary. I've spent alot of time active in feminist politics, so your words are meaningless.

[Pogue]

Yet more excellent analysis here - our most r-r-r-revolutionary member of the board dismisses a group he criticizes for being reactionary with a sexist pejorative.

Since NGOs are apparently always objective and never have any ties with governments or material interests....here's some statistics from Freedom House to show that Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship which needs to be overthrown by our brave boys and replaced with an American democracy and a free-market economy!

Not all NGOs are unbias. I'm sure they all have some sort of bias. But as I said, I trust AI more than the BBC, the CIA and Hamas.

[Pogue]

Yet more excellent analysis here - our most r-r-r-revolutionary member of the board dismisses a group he criticizes for being reactionary with a sexist pejorative.

Since NGOs are apparently always objective and never have any ties with governments or material interests....here's some statistics from Freedom House to show that Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship which needs to be overthrown by our brave boys and replaced with an American democracy and a free-market economy!

I've done my analysis earlier on. I'd say your analysis is skewed. At the end of the day, you want us to support a reactionary and anti-worker organisation with 'logic' that is compeltely rubbish.

[Saorsa]

You lost the right to use that liberal thing against me when you failed to accept my request for a debate when I tols you to prove it. I'm an anarchist and active in anarchist politics, so you fail.

Ooh I fail do I? Typically crushing arguments, "you fail LOLZ". I don't need to hold a "debate" with you over how you're a liberal, you prove it time and time again with the arguments you put forward and the methods you use to argue them. I'd be happy to start a poll on the question if you'd like! :lol:

Ffs man you're an "anarchist" with a POUM flag! Crazy.


Yes, Hamas are bad. They don't want to protect the Palestinains, they're happy to use them as cannon fodder. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend all that. I'm on the side of the Palestinians, thats why I've been active in this movement over recent weeks.

The foot soldiers of Hamas objectively were protecting the Palestinian communities in Gaza from the IDF as Israeli tanks rolled through the streets. Nobodies extending them political support, we're just recognising the facts and applying materialist rationality as opposed to your liberal idealism.


I love how you're all chummy with me up until the point I challenge your fragile and confused analysis. Stop being so two-faced, either attack me personally all the time, be civil, or just attack my politics.

:crying:

"Mummy, Bobkindles is being meeeeeeeeeeean..."


I'm not going to listen to some intellectual student who is so out of touch wth ordinary people and the working class its unbelievable to continue calling me and my friends reactionary because we use words that he likes to think of as sexist.

BK never said you were reactionary, he criticised you for using sexist terminology to call another group reactionary. Your attitude here is workerist in the extreme - there are a lot of reactionary attitudes amongst the working class, just as with other classes, and the fact that the bearers of these attitudes happen to be proletarian in no way excuses the fact that they hold them. Everyone I grew up with used the word "gay" as a synonym for bad, lame, boring etc. Many of them were working class. Does this mean we shouldn't criticise the use of the word gay in this way? Actual revolutionaries wouldn't think so.

I'm eager to hear you defend AI against the criticisms made of it in the two links Charming Man provided, btw. You love them so much, it should be easy!

[BobKKKindle$]

I love how you're all chummy with me up until the point I challenge your fragile and confused analysis.I've never been chummy with anyone - I don't come to Revleft to make friends, I come here to debate, and to learn about radical politics. As for my arguments, your position has been consistently exposed as idealistic and as indicative of a failure to understand the facts on the ground every single time we have a debate on Palestine or any other situation where a population is suffering from national oppression. The fact is that there is not a single person on this forum who agrees with Hamas on an ideological level, or is happy about the fact that Hamas currently commands such respect amongst the population of Gaza and continues to lead the resistance. Nonetheless, we do not ignore facts - we acknowledge the basic fact that there is no other organization capable of fighting back against Israel and providing any degree of protection to the Palestinian people, and so, given that Palestinians are highly unlikely to accept their situation as long as they continue to endure shortages of medical supplies due to the Israeli blockade, and face Israeli bombardments on a regular basis, it makes perfect sense that so many Palestinians value Hamas and consider themselves supporters of that organization. This is not a case of the Palestinians being deceived by bourgeois ideology - it is a case of material reality, as no oppressed population is ever going to sit back and wait until the glorious day of the revolution when all workers will join hands and rid the world of capitalism once and for all. As in every other instance of national oppression, Palestinians are fighting back and supporting the resistance effort, because imperialism represents the single biggest threat to their human dignity and the safety of their communities - this is why the NLF had a support base in Vietnam, this is why ordinary people are planting roadside bombs in Iraq and support attacks conducted against the occupation. When faced with this situation - a reactionary group leading a national liberation struggle - there are various things socialists can do. We can refuse to support the resistance because we don't like the fact that Hamas is ideologically reactionary, which is what you are doing, because you think that this is a good enough reason. Or, we can encourage efforts to build a socialist party that will eventually be able to take over from Hamas and lead the resistance at the same time as campaigning to overthrow capitalism and fight against all other forms of oppression, but, in the mean time, given that the building such a party is something that can only take place over a long period of time, and given that imperialism is not going to unclench its fist during that process of construction, we can acknowledge the right of Palestinians to resist, and the progressive character of their resistance, and on that basis support the military struggle that is being led by Hamas. This is what Marxists do. It has been stated time and time again that this position depends on Hamas continuing its role as a resistance organization - if at any point Hamas gave in and became a tool of the Israeli state, then there would no longer be any reason to give any kind of support to Hamas whatsoever, and in that instance it is likely that Hamas would quickly lose its support amongst the civilian population, as has already occurred in the case of Fatah. It's a basic fact that, even if its only in pursuit of their own political ends, Hamas does have a role in protecting Palestinians - during the Gaza conflict it was frequently stated in news reports that the main reason why the IDF didn't carry out a ground invasion of Gaza city was because they knew they would have to deal with Hamas militants and would probably have suffered heavy casualties in street-to-street fighting. This is also true of Hezbollah, who smashed the IDF in 2006, and the successfully rebuilt southern Lebanon. The fact that Hamas continues to fight back is why they have such a broad base of popular support - it's not because those poor workers who can't think for themselves have been brainwashed into becoming evil fascists.

It's really not that complicated. You haven't shown that anyone's position is fragile or confused.

[Sam_b]

I think its funny that everytime someone challenges H-L-V-S's politics, he gives two or three line answers and accuses other comrades of not holding a proper debate.

[BobKKKindle$]

Incidentally, HLVS, this not my position in the sense of a position that was created by and is unique to me, so my social position is irrelevant, and the fact that you persist in claiming that my anti-imperialist stance is derived from my lack of contact with the working class just shows that you can't engage with the issues at hand. Lenin and other Marxists throughout history have adopted the same position, and my position is held by the other members of the SWP, and nearly every other serious Marxist organization, so I suggest that you deal with the analysis, instead of focusing on personal squabbles.

[benhur]

I think its funny that everytime someone challenges H-L-V-S's politics, he gives two or three line answers and accuses other comrades of not holding a proper debate.

And it's equally funny that you challenge this with a one-liner.:laugh:

[Pogue]

Ooh I fail do I? Typically crushing arguments, "you fail LOLZ". I don't need to hold a "debate" with you over how you're a liberal, you prove it time and time again with the arguments you put forward and the methods you use to argue them. I'd be happy to start a poll on the question if you'd like! :lol:

Ffs man you're an "anarchist" with a POUM flag! Crazy.



The foot soldiers of Hamas objectively were protecting the Palestinian communities in Gaza from the IDF as Israeli tanks rolled through the streets. Nobodies extending them political support, we're just recognising the facts and applying materialist rationality as opposed to your liberal idealism.



:crying:

"Mummy, Bobkindles is being meeeeeeeeeeean..."



BK never said you were reactionary, he criticised you for using sexist terminology to call another group reactionary. Your attitude here is workerist in the extreme - there are a lot of reactionary attitudes amongst the working class, just as with other classes, and the fact that the bearers of these attitudes happen to be proletarian in no way excuses the fact that they hold them. Everyone I grew up with used the word "gay" as a synonym for bad, lame, boring etc. Many of them were working class. Does this mean we shouldn't criticise the use of the word gay in this way? Actual revolutionaries wouldn't think so.

I'm eager to hear you defend AI against the criticisms made of it in the two links Charming Man provided, btw. You love them so much, it should be easy!

How can a poll prove I am a liberal if I beleive in a revolution to create a society run by the workers? Surely that makes me a socialist?

I'll ask you now: How can I be a 'liberal' if I am active in and believe in socialism, of the revolutionary kind? How can I be a liberla but active in anarchist class strugglist politics?

[Pogue]

Also, why is it crazy to be an anarchist yet have an avatar of a party which thought alongside the Anarchists in Spain? I never got that criticism. Yeh, I'm an anarchist, why should that exclude me from respect for other leftist organisations? If you looked at history you'd realise that anarchist and POUM militias fought alongside each other, but seeing as you haven't even read enough to understand the meaning of liberal, I doubt you could cope with a bit of history. :laugh:

[Pogue]

Incidentally, HLVS, this not my position in the sense of a position that was created by and is unique to me, so my social position is irrelevant, and the fact that you persist in claiming that my anti-imperialist stance is derived from my lack of contact with the working class just shows that you can't engage with the issues at hand. Lenin and other Marxists throughout history have adopted the same position, and my position is held by the other members of the SWP, and nearly every other serious Marxist organization, so I suggest that you deal with the analysis, instead of focusing on personal squabbles.

Its not your position on imperialism that makes me think your detached, its you condescending attitude and insistence on complex arguments and support for organisations which attack workers that confirms this. I see you as the intellectual champagne socialist of the worst kind. But thats just my opinion, what do I know, I'm a liberal, etc.

[Pogue]

Ooh I fail do I? Typically crushing arguments, "you fail LOLZ". I don't need to hold a "debate" with you over how you're a liberal, you prove it time and time again with the arguments you put forward and the methods you use to argue them. I'd be happy to start a poll on the question if you'd like! :lol:

Ffs man you're an "anarchist" with a POUM flag! Crazy.



The foot soldiers of Hamas objectively were protecting the Palestinian communities in Gaza from the IDF as Israeli tanks rolled through the streets. Nobodies extending them political support, we're just recognising the facts and applying materialist rationality as opposed to your liberal idealism.



:crying:

"Mummy, Bobkindles is being meeeeeeeeeeean..."



BK never said you were reactionary, he criticised you for using sexist terminology to call another group reactionary. Your attitude here is workerist in the extreme - there are a lot of reactionary attitudes amongst the working class, just as with other classes, and the fact that the bearers of these attitudes happen to be proletarian in no way excuses the fact that they hold them. Everyone I grew up with used the word "gay" as a synonym for bad, lame, boring etc. Many of them were working class. Does this mean we shouldn't criticise the use of the word gay in this way? Actual revolutionaries wouldn't think so.

I'm eager to hear you defend AI against the criticisms made of it in the two links Charming Man provided, btw. You love them so much, it should be easy!

Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic and blind in my support for any organisations, but I'll quite happily prove that AI isn't the tool of the bourgeois and apologetic to imperialism.

I have no problem with being workerist. I think your definition of it is straight out of the Bob Kindles-Jacob Richter dictionary, because its a term used to describe someone who believes in a) The centrality of the working class or b) Someone who celebrates the working class and defenders their interests. I have alot in common with these positions.

I'm not at all defensive of reactionary ideas, I'm very vocally against them, I just understand that a worker holding reactionary views doesn't make them scum and its our role to try and get rid of these views, as opposed to someone like Bob Kindles who just likes to denounce them from the safety of his campus.

Anyway, nothing me or Killfacer (f you're referring to Bob Kindles accusing him of orientalism) has said on this forum has ever been in anyway reactionary. Not in any normal, rational persons mind anyway, but I wouldn't class you as that. I'd put you in the dogmatic, holier than thou drowning-in-useless-and-crap-theory group, you know, that one in which you support groups like the nepalese Maoists and Hamas who are either par tof the bourgeois state or hold incredibly reactionary views respectively.

I'm not really crying to my mum about Bob Kindles attacking me, its the usual tripe and I've come to expect it from him, and people like you, who when they're faced with someone who doesn't worship the party line as much as them, chooses to just call someone more genuinely pro-working class and pro-revolution than them Liberal. Funny because you're the one who slavishly worships the Nepalese maoists and indeed, Hamas. Nice.

On the topic of you referring to my liberal idealism - Sorry, I must have missed the day when believing the only solution to world conflict is class unity and socialist revolution became 'liberalism', which too my knowledge up until this day I somehow missed (I was probably at the Lib Dem conference kissing Nick Cleggs feet) referred to the ideology of belief in a small state and alot of private enterprise, a free market and storng focus on individual liberty. But hey, you must be right, because you're an anti-imperialist and I'm just a reacitonary worker. :rolleyes:

I think the 'anti-imperialists' and Maoists in particular become so involved in supporting the campaigns of reactionary or bourgeois organisations that they begin to lose sight of what socialism is actually about, hence the mindless accusations of 'liberal' to an anarchist and outrage when I expressed the fact that supporting a group which breaks strikes, believes in an extreme Islamist ideology and has carried out bombing attacks in the past which have targetted civilians (and before you jump on me, I'm referring to the many attacks they carried out before the recent conflict) is unlikely to lead to a worker run society based on equality and freedom.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Joe, please don't post things like this. It is completely unnecessary. A critique is, of course, valid in this instance, but posting a picture and an pointless one liner are not "critiques". - Socialism ou barbarie

[Wanted Man]

Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic and blind in my support for any organisations, but I'll quite happily prove that AI isn't the tool of the bourgeois and apologetic to imperialism.
I'm shuddering with anticipation.

[Pogue]

I'm shuddering with anticipation.

Nice one. Perhaps in return I'll get a debate over how I'm a liberal with anyone willing?

[BobKKKindle$]

No, you won't find anyone willing, because we don't care, and when a Marxist calls you a liberal, they obviously don't mean it in the sense that you want to be a member of the Liberal Democrats or that you see Mill as the source of your political ideas - it means that you adopt an overly idealistic perspective of things instead of studying each situation in its totality, which is true for everyone to see. Now, are you going to prove that AI is an objective organization, or will you accept that it justifies imperialism by adopting the same liberal perspective that you do?

[benhur]

My eyes are bleeding

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y159/mattlcohen/Bleeding_Eyes1.jpg?t=1235671415

:laugh:
At least, we can use bobkindles to torture counterrevolutionaries.

[Pogue]

No, you won't find anyone willing, because we don't care, and when a Marxist calls you a liberal, they obviously don't mean it in the sense that you want to be a member of the Liberal Democrats or that you see Mill as the source of your political ideas - it means that you adopt an overly idealistic perspective of things instead of studying each situation in its totality, which is true for everyone to see. Now, are you going to prove that AI is an objective organization, or will you accept that it justifies imperialism by adopting the same liberal perspective that you do?

Sorry, I didn't know Marxists had the right to change the meanings of words?

I find it funny how supporting united internaitonal working class action against the bosses worldwide makes it me justifying imperialism, whereas you supporting Hamas and their extremist reactionary ideology is somehow perfectly in line with socialist thought.

[Pogue]

By the way Bob how active were you recently in the protests about the Israeli aggresion in Palestine? Becuase I was out on every protest there was in london (and I'm an anarchist, zomgawd), and for some reason you think you can lecture me with your bullshit about the palestine situation as if I don't have a clue.

[BobKKKindle$]

you supporting Hamas is somehow perfectly in line with socialist thought. It doesn't matter how many times you assert that people support Hamas, it's not going to come true, and every time you make that allegation you just show everyone that you can't engage with the arguments so the only other way you can save face is by trying to rubbish your opponents with crass assertions. Marxists do not lend political support to any reactionary movement, but when Hamas fights back against Israeli imperialism we recognize that, from the perspective of both the Palestinian working class, and the working class throughout the world, it is better for Hamas to win, as a victory against Israeli imperialism would weaken the imperialist system, and undermine the chauvinism of the Israeli working class. This does not mean we refuse to take the side of the Palestinian working class - in fact, it's the exact opposite, we give our firm support to the Palestinian working class by recognizing their right to resist and supporting movements which take up arms against the IDF in defense of Gaza. Whether you like it or not, Hamas is popular - and no, it's not because the workers have been decieved, or that they don't know how to think for themselves, it's because Hamas fights back against the single biggest threat to the safety of Palestinian communities - Israeli imperialism - whereas Fatah does not. Do you think it's reasonable to expect Palestinian workers not to fight back, or something, just because there isn't an anarchist clique available to lead the resistance struggle against the IDF? These arguments have all been made before, even in my previous post, which you ignored, as expected, and you have consistently failed to respond because you don't understand what imperialism is - let's not forget that in the past few months you've asserted that imperialism doesn't matter, and does not constitute a major thread to the position of working people living in oppressed nations. In fact, let's post the thread right here so people can look at your views on imperialism: 'Was North Korea wrong to test nuclear weapons (http://www.revleft.com/vb/north-korea-wrong-t52278/index6.html?t=52278&page=6&highlight=imperialism)'

These cases are gems, and sum up the liberal attitude you enjoy promoting at every possible opportunity:

"I still however condemn North Korea as much as I do the US"
"But like I said, Imperialism is of minimal concern"

When someone asserts that North Korea and the US should be treated equally, that's a clear indication that they just don't understand what imperialism is about, and can't appreciate how power is exercised in geopolitics.

So, are you going to take up the issue of AI, or continue trying to dodge what you promised to do?


By the way Bob how active were you recently in the protests about the Israeli aggresion in Palestine?I've been extremely active - but this is entirely besides the point, because going on a protest doesn't prove you have good politics, or that you understand the issues involved. Your personal experiences are irrelevant to this debate, and rather dull.

[Random Precision]

This is liberal garbage. It doesnt matter if the mayority in a region supports or not their regional butchers- the nature of the latter does not change as if this were some sort of popularity contest.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you. I'm guessing it matters a lot to Gazans. And they're the ones dealing with Zionist aggression, not you.


Hamas is a political murder-gang that is responsable of killing cadre of opposition parties, preventing folks on going to egyptian hospitals, and of pinning down whatever little glimpse of class action gaza has experienced.

Yes, Hamas has a reactionary role in that sense. But these things aren't the only things they've done, and you have to look at all aspects of their activity to form a coherent view. Your view of them is very narrow and from it you'll never get a clear grasp of why Gazans support Hamas, or develop a realistic analysis of the situation.


You might get all your pants wet at the sight of seeing brown people with guns, but the truth is, that these "brown people" are being martyred for nothing by a bunch of islamist scum that hide in places were the bombs are not dropping.

The accusations of racism are unwarranted, and you're a lot better than that.


Someoene who truly cares about the situation and the people there would support the realistic alternative, which is, trying to survive by whatever means rather than running directly to the slaughterhouse.

The Israeli leadership will not be discouraged if Hamas vanished tomorrow and every Gazan dug a hole to hide in from the attacks. All it would do is make their work a lot easier.

[black magick hustla]

bk abusing hlvs


Honestly, I think folks like you, especially you, do a lot of theoretical moonwalking and obfuscate issues that are crystal clear in the name of some cookie cutter "marxist" analysis". If you cheer for a group you are lending him political support. Why is this so difficult to understand? We are materialists, it does not matter what we, in our hearts, feel about a group but what are the rammifications in the positions we argue. The whole "military" support garbage makes absolutely no sense, especially coming from university trotskyists. If I do whatever I can to further a group's agenda, in your case arguing in favor of it, whether you said "I am not supporting them but I hate Israeli imperialism¨" has the same effects as if you did it enthusiastically, because we live in a material world, not in a world where ideas just stand by themselves.

So really, all your patronizing of people "not knowing about geopolitics" is rendered worthless because most of your huge wall posts are empty theoretical gimmicks rather than real content.

[Random Precision]

I actually agree a bit with the above. "Military support" is a tired ortho-Trot formulation that's not only cryptic, as on its face you might expect Israeli Trotskyists to be building rockets and sending them to Hamas, but also dishonest, because it attempts to divide support for a certain aim from support for the group that's seeking to carry it out. We support the end of Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, and the creation of a socialist Palestinian state from the Jordan to the sea, let's make no bones about it. If Hamas has a beneficial role in that process, then yes, we politically support them for as far as that role extends. We'll leave the verbal gymnastics to ultra-leftists who claim to oppose Israeli imperialism but also oppose the efforts being made against it.

So we shouldn't be squeamish about saying that we politically support Hamas. What goals of theirs we support, how critical we are of their organization and their potential to reach those goals, and that we recognize their reactionary role in other areas, is what matters above any semantic issues.

[BobKKKindle$]

Actually, Marmot, you're the one with no content here. Saying that you oppose Israeli imperialism is meaningless unless you also say that you support efforts to resist imperialism, even if they are being conducted by reactionary movements such as Hamas, because in the short term, before imperialism is overthrown through proletarian revolution once and for all, resistance is the only way the people who are living under the heel of the IDF or any other military occupation can protect themselves against invasion and stop their communities from being bombed by fighter jets and attack helicopters. Anyone who watched the news during the most recent invasion of Gaza will realize that encouraging workers to "hide" is silly, when the IDF is launching attacks against schools and hospitals which contain no Hamas militants whatsoever, seemingly with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible. The 42 Palestinians killed by Israel shells targeting a UN school thought they were hiding too. The fact that you can't recognize this, and the fact that you persist in asserting without any evidence that the only reason someone living in Gaza would ever want to become part of the resistance or even vote for Hamas in an election is because they have been deceived and deprived of any capacity to reason, is just proof of how silly and irrelevant your politics are. Why would any Gazan worker want to stop all resistance, given that it would be an invitation for the IDF to storm Gaza and establish themselves as an occupying force and economic exploiter for the rest of time? What explanation do you have for the fact that Hamas has a mass support base, that doesn't involve dismissing workers as being under the control of bourgeois ideology? You speak of having a materialist analysis, and yet you totally discard the material reasons behind the popularity that Hamas commands

And please, who am I "abusing"? HLVS promised us an explanation of why AI is objective when it comes to Palestine. We're still waiting. He also thinks that imperialism is not important. A good position? I think not.

[Saorsa]

Bump. H-L-V-S has yet to refute the articles Charming Man linked to despite his earlier promise to do so.

[Yehuda Stern]

RP: I too think 'military support' is a bad way to say what we mean. But that still doesn't mean that Marxist can give political support to non-proletarian parties, including Hamas.

By the way, I think it's very true to say that the ISO and SWP do, in fact, support Hamas politically. However, that doesn't mean that the same is true for other groups who support the Palestinian resistance.

[Pogue]

Bump. H-L-V-S has yet to refute the articles Charming Man linked to despite his earlier promise to do so.

Oh, I was intending to do it in its own thread as a debate to avoid any interruptions or hijackings.

Also I wanted to know that if I particpated in this debate, would anyone give me one where they prove I am a liberal in return?

[Random Precision]

RP: I too think 'military support' is a bad way to say what we mean. But that still doesn't mean that Marxist can give political support to non-proletarian parties, including Hamas.

That depends on what you think of as political support. I think that you can politically support one group as far as seeing certain of their aims fulfilled, while recognizing that their other aims are reactionary. Obviously this kind of political support is qualitatively different from the kind of political support you give to your organization.

Unlike the ultra-leftists, I don't think that the term "political support" holds any particular power or says much by itself about the person who's doing it, as long as he qualifies what exactly he means by it.


By the way, I think it's very true to say that the ISO and SWP do, in fact, support Hamas politically. However, that doesn't mean that the same is true for other groups who support the Palestinian resistance.

Can you explain how your position toward Hamas is different than that of the ISO and SWP (assuming that they have the same position)? I'm guessing that you'd more or less agree with this thing I wrote, since I swiped some of the language from you:


We support the end of Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, and the creation of a socialist Palestinian state from the Jordan to the sea, let's make no bones about it. If Hamas has a beneficial role in that process, then yes, we politically support them for as far as that role extends.

Now "military support" really has no meaning, unless you actually are building rockets and sending them to Hamas, so unless you're going to invent a new term, I'd say that you politically support Hamas in the same way we do.

[black magick hustla]

stuff


I don't see how my positions have no content. they are crystal clear and the reasoning behind them are as well. On the contrary, calls for "resistance", either from the communist left or from leftists, is just sloganeering. While you might be satisfied with dumb symbolic gestures, and the whole idea of "dying on your feet rather than living on your knees", I am not impressed by that--- the reality is that there is nothing except hiding and runnng that can be done right now against the israeli state.

Do you seriously think a quasi-state that has control over a few kilometers of dry and worthless land can do anything against jet bombers at their peak? While Hamas encouraging their militants to have an assured death might seem noble to you, to me that sounds completely outrageous. It is outrageous that they also prevent palestinians from going outside. There is not much palestinians can do about this, but trying to encourage them to die quicker is dumb sloganeering at best, and disgustingly reactionary at worse. Furthermore, encouraging to die for the the political maneauvers of a brutal murder-gang with leaders that are ideological cavemen that shoot their political opponents and that have clamped down on any sort of meager glimpse of class conciousness is completely unprincipled.

now, you might think I am doing verbal gymnastics for saying I oppose imperialism while dismissing Hamas. I am simply being brutally honest and saying what I would do in such a situation. I would try to do whatever possible to survive, which is a very sensible and human reaction. Your concept of "imperialism" is very simplistic if you think it can be destroyed by reactionary islamist gangs. Worse, its completely devoid of any substance but it is immersed in centrist theoritical garbage that may sound impressive to a bunch of university kids but they do not impress me.

The whole appeal to popularity of Hamas is meaningless to me. I reject all democratic slogans under the pretense that the ruling ideas are the ones of the ruling class, a very basic marxist concept. Leftists of all stripes like to play lipservice to that thesis, but they never apply it to an analysis of reality, because that might require a sturdier backbone. After all, the appeals to the "people" and "democracy" are completely integrated to ruling class ideology and rejecting them does not "seem right". The workers rejected those slogans in 1917 when they took control of the constituent assembly against a democracy of peasants, and I will gladly follow that tradition.

[black magick hustla]

words

Ive answered most of your inquiries when answering Bk.

[Sean]

I support Amnesty International by donating and writing letters. Heres the default one, I'd be interested in how others would phrase it (Its being sent to David Milliband):

I urge you to work with the international community to impose immediately a comprehensive UN Security Council arms embargo on Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups until effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that weapons or munitions and other military equipment will not be used to commit serious violations of international human rights law and IHL. This must include ensuring that alleged violations are thoroughly and impartially investigated and a process of accountability puts in place, with any persons who are found responsible being brought to justice in fair trials.

It is also important that the UK Government acts immediately to unilaterally suspend all transfers of military equipment, assistance and munitions, as well as those which may be diverted, to Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups until there is no longer a substantial risk that such equipment will be used for serious violations of international human rights law and IHL. The suspension should include all indirect exports via other countries, the transfer of military components and technologies and any brokering, financial or logistical activities that would facilitate such transfers.

I am still deeply concerned about reports that UK arms components may be used in military equipment used by the Israeli armed forces. Specifically, it would appear that a UK company may have provided engines for Israeli Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs). Despite assurances from the Israeli manufactures, available evidence strongly suggests that UK engines or their components have been used in these drones.

Such pilot-less drone Aircraft have been widely used by Israeli forces to help target bombs, aircraft and helicopter attacks in Lebanon and Gaza. Given the clear misuse of arms by all sides to the conflict in indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, existing assurances given by foreign governments and defence companies about the ultimate end-use of UK supplied weapons are not sufficient. It is vital that the UK does not license components that could be used to commit human rights violations and takes immediate steps to physically verify the actual end-use of UK supplied arms, including engines from UAVs.

As a state with strong bilateral relations with the US government, it’s important that you call for an investigation into Israel’s misuse of US weapons in Gaza and the immediate review of US military aid to Israel. As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the US has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross human rights violations. The UK Government could play a strong and effective role in ensuring civilians are protected and there is accountability for all.

I very much welcome your personal support for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The need for such a treaty remains pressing and urgent. As a champion of the ATT, it is vital that the UK’s own arms export controls are sufficiently tough and that all necessary action is taken to prevent arms fuelling further conflict and misery in Gaza and Israel.

[bretty]

Amnesty Intl. is one of the organizations doing good work.

I don't think it's a matter of good and evil here. It's imperialism. Gaza is a forced slum.

[Random Precision]

Do you seriously think a quasi-state that has control over a few kilometers of dry and worthless land can do anything against jet bombers at their peak?

I'd ask the Israeli government about that. They certainly seem to be taking Hamas seriously as a threat.


Furthermore, encouraging to die for the the political maneauvers of a brutal murder-gang with leaders that are ideological cavemen that shoot their political opponents and that have clamped down on any sort of meager glimpse of class conciousness is completely unprincipled.

But that's not what they're dying for. They're dying for an independent Palestine, and at a more fundamental level to stop indiscriminate violence against them and their families. You have to ask yourself why they want this, and why they think fighting for Hamas can bring it about.


I would try to do whatever possible to survive, which is a very sensible and human reaction.

Another sensible and human reaction is to try and stop the violence being done against you any way that you can. In Gaza it's quite easy to see why fighting doesn't make your situation any worse, considering what the eventual goals of the Zionist state are there.


Your concept of "imperialism" is very simplistic if you think it can be destroyed by reactionary islamist gangs. Worse, its completely devoid of any substance but it is immersed in centrist theoritical garbage that may sound impressive to a bunch of university kids but they do not impress me.

Cut the prolier-than-thou crap. You're just as much a university kid as me and Bob.

Also, I think you should apologize for accusing Bob of racism, it's not only insulting but also hypocritical given that you've written off what's happening in Palestine as a "bourgeois land squabble" on at least one occasion.

[black magick hustla]

Cut the prolier-than-thou crap. You're just as much a university kid as me and Bob.Of course I am. This is not the issue though. the issue is that he obfuscates crystal clear issues with a lot of theoretical moonwalking and huge walls of texts and then anytime someoene rejects his theses they "don't know about things" or of "irrelevance". Its not the first time he does this. Its incredibly patronizing. Hence the "university thing"


I'd ask the Israeli government about that. They certainly seem to be taking Hamas seriously as a threat.If I kill a cop I go to jail.


But that's not what they're dying for. They're dying for an independent Palestine, and at a more fundamental level to stop indiscriminate violence against them and their families. You have to ask yourself why they want this, and why they think fighting for Hamas can bring it about.You could have said this about virtually every war in the 20th century. Furthermore you should ask yourself if "they can stop violence against their family" by launching sugar powered rockets at random israeli civilians.


Also, I think you should apologize for accusing Bob of racism, it's not only insulting but also hypocritical given that you've written off what's happening in Palestine as a "bourgeois land squabble" on at least one occasion.All capitalist wars are "bourgeois squabbles of land" regardless of the inherent brutality of one side, or of the color of the skin of people fighting in those wars. Just take a close look at the people who give the orders.

[Random Precision]

You could have said this about virtually every war in the 20th century.

No, you couldn't, except with incredibly long leaps that defy logic and any rational understanding of history.


Furthermore you should ask yourself if "they can stop violence against their family" by launching sugar powered rockets at random israeli civilians.

This is hardly the extent of Hamas' activity against the occupation. Even if it were, I expect most Gazans would see it as a better choice than waiting for the IDF to kick down their doors, which is what you're telling them to do.


All capitalist wars are "bourgeois squabbles of land" regardless of the inherent brutality of one side, or of the color of the skin of people fighting in those wars. Just take a close look at the people who give the orders.

Sigh. I guess I have to spell this out for you.

The Israeli bourgeoisie is seeking more land. To do this, they have taken the land and destroyed the homes of proletarian and peasant Arabs, and forced the ones who weren't killed into ghettos in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip. There, the same proletarians are subject to constant, indiscriminate violence and harassment by the armed forces of the aforementioned Israeli bourgeoisie, and subject to brutal repression whether or not they try to resist out of their legitimate impulse to do so.

By writing their struggle off as a "bourgeois land squabble", you do nothing more than prove the impotence of your ideology to the revolution today. It's the epitome of ultra-leftism: applying abstract principles that were developed a century ago in Europe to the actual, modern-day struggles of workers in the neo-colonies.

[Pogue]

No, you couldn't, except with incredibly long leaps that defy logic and any rational understanding of history.



This is hardly the extent of Hamas' activity against the occupation. Even if it were, I expect most Gazans would see it as a better choice than waiting for the IDF to kick down their doors, which is what you're telling them to do.



Sigh. I guess I have to spell this out for you.

The Israeli bourgeoisie is seeking more land. To do this, they have taken the land and destroyed the homes of proletarian and peasant Arabs, and forced the ones who weren't killed into ghettos in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip. There, the same proletarians are subject to constant, indiscriminate violence and harassment by the armed forces of the aforementioned Israeli bourgeoisie, and subject to brutal repression whether or not they try to resist out of their legitimate impulse to do so.

By writing their struggle off as a "bourgeois land squabble", you do nothing more than prove the impotence of your ideology to the revolution today. It's the epitome of ultra-leftism: applying abstract principles that were developed a century ago in Europe to the actual, modern-day struggles of workers in the neo-colonies.

I don't understand this perception from many comrades on this board that Hamas are somehow actually protecting the working class. They're not. They haven't really acheived jack shit. Over one thousand Palestinians still died, predominantly civilians (and 4 Israeli civilians too), and Palestine is still controlled by Israel.

They don't have to wait for their doors to be kicked down by the IDF because they're doors have been blown up with the rest of their house and Hamas didn't stop this. They probably don't even give a shit.

What your doing is telling the Palestinians to put there hope in a hopeless organisation, that if by some miracle won, would leave them all waiting for Hamas to come kick their doors down because they went on strike or perhaps because they're gay.

[manic expression]

Oh, I was intending to do it in its own thread as a debate to avoid any interruptions or hijackings.

Also I wanted to know that if I particpated in this debate, would anyone give me one where they prove I am a liberal in return?

Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic and blind in my support for any organisations, but I'll quite happily prove that AI isn't the tool of the bourgeois and apologetic to imperialism.

We're still waiting.


I don't understand this perception from many comrades on this board that Hamas are somehow actually protecting the working class. They're not. They haven't really acheived jack shit. Over one thousand Palestinians still died, predominantly civilians (and 4 Israeli civilians too), and Palestine is still controlled by Israel.

They don't have to wait for their doors to be kicked down by the IDF because they're doors have been blown up with the rest of their house and Hamas didn't stop this. They probably don't even give a shit.What ignorance. Really, you know absolutely nothing about the conflict. You need to crack open a book sometime.

Hamas devotes much of its annual budget to a social services network. They provide crucial services to the people of Gaza in everyday life. In addition, they are protecting the Palestinian working class; they're essentially the only force which does so.

Your argument that Hamas accomplishes nothing because Palestinians died and because Israel still controls Palestine is laughable. If that were a valid way of measuring organizations, then the French Resistance, the Spanish Republicans and the anti-apartheid movement would be just as bad as Hamas. It takes a special kind of senselessness to hold such a ridiculous opinion.

"Oh, gee, Hamas didn't summon a magical forcefield to defend every Palestinian family...they really are worthless!" Try thinking about something before you say it.

And since you can't figure it out for yourself, the reason why it's bizarre for you to have a POUM avatar is because the POUM was decidedly un-anarchist. You're an anarchist, that's a hammer and sickle. Sure, they fought with the anarchists in the Spanish civil war, but so did so-called "Stalinists" and social democrats. It would be like me throwing up the symbol of the Holy See because some Catholic clergymen sided with the socialists in Latin America. It's inconsistent and plain naive.

[black magick hustla]

No, you couldn't, except with incredibly long leaps that defy logic and any rational understanding of history.
And tell me young man what are these differences then? The whole issue of "protecting your family" has been a staple to all calls for national defense. It was in WWI where the massacre was exponentially bigger, it was also the call used by the germans when pissed off russian soldiers were not taking prisoners and were raping german women, or when the stalinists where willing to shoot their own retreating soldiers. It is the slogan used by african "diamond" gangs when the threat of being killed, raped, sold off as a sex slave, etc, by the opposing gang is probably bigger than in palestine. This is capitalist barbarism. Your position is such a slippery slope that if the american state for some reason invaded mexico you would cheer for the forceful drafting (we have forced military service) of my friends and family.


This is hardly the extent of Hamas' activity against the occupation. Even if it were, I expect most Gazans would see it as a better choice than waiting for the IDF to kick down their doors, which is what you're telling them to do.



I am not tellng them to do anything except survive. If they have to shoot israeli soldiers so be it. What you are telling them however, is to place themselves in front of tanks and follow the orders of scum who hide their tail in damascus. You call the communist left "detached", I think all the leftists are detached if they think there is any possibility that a pseudo-state armed with homemade weapons who has declared total war to one of the best armed states in the whole world (and right in its border) can do anything to better the situation except excarberate it more (by throwing sugar rockets at random civilians).








blah
.

What is happening in Palestine is awful and I already know this. However, one has to wonder if your fancy centrist theories on "imperialism" which according to you are up to date, are the real deal with all the mugabes, amin idis, and blood diamond gangs that emerged out of them. One has also to wonder about the "non-impotence" of your fancy theories if it translates to ridicolous calls of "socialist states" being established through the victory of reactionary mullahs against one of the most powerful states in the whole
world. One has also to wonder how is declaring total war anything good for the palestinians who live in there.

[Pogue]

Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic and blind in my support for any organisations, but I'll quite happily prove that AI isn't the tool of the bourgeois and apologetic to imperialism.

We're still waiting.

What ignorance. Really, you know absolutely nothing about the conflict. You need to crack open a book sometime.

Hamas devotes much of its annual budget to a social services network. They provide crucial services to the people of Gaza in everyday life. In addition, they are protecting the Palestinian working class; they're essentially the only force which does so.

Your argument that Hamas accomplishes nothing because Palestinians died and because Israel still controls Palestine is laughable. If that were a valid way of measuring organizations, then the French Resistance, the Spanish Republicans and the anti-apartheid movement would be just as bad as Hamas. It takes a special kind of senselessness to hold such a ridiculous opinion.

"Oh, gee, Hamas didn't summon a magical forcefield to defend every Palestinian family...they really are worthless!" Try thinking about something before you say it.

And since you can't figure it out for yourself, the reason why it's bizarre for you to have a POUM avatar is because the POUM was decidedly un-anarchist. You're an anarchist, that's a hammer and sickle. Sure, they fought with the anarchists in the Spanish civil war, but so did so-called "Stalinists" and social democrats. It would be like me throwing up the symbol of the Holy See because some Catholic clergymen sided with the socialists in Latin America. It's inconsistent and plain naive.

Difference being, the partisans engaged in armed combat with guns, as did the Spanish volunteers. They fought a war beyond sending a few token home made rockets into Israel.

The apartheid protests were part of a wider campaign that actually succeeded, too. If the partisans and Spanish volunteers had squatted throughout their respective wars and fired rockets randomly into areas where they fought Franco's forces were, then they would have been useless, just like Hamas. Instead they actually fought on the front lines agains tthe fascists. Hamas are useless and you should know they will never succeed.

[Sativa Indica]

Personally, I think its rather shady to discuss the crimes of Israel, phosphorous shells etc, then to compare them with the civilian attacks done by Hamas. The way i see it is, Isreal is clearly the more advanced technologically speaking in terms of weaponry, compared to the rockets and machines guns of hamas. Keeping this in mind, i do not wish to belittle the skills of a rocketeer, however im almost certain that the accuracy of such a weapon, is NOTHING compared to the control syetems used in the trageting of Israels bombs.

Thus, i find such claims unjust. I do not wish to defend any act of violence on a civilian populus, merely state, that even if Hams were to try and attack military targets, due to international blockades and trade embargos that limit supplies, i feel its almost impossible for them to acheive such accuracy, with such primitive weaponry, relatively speaking of course.

Admitedly, I do support Hamas, but only to the extent of the Palestinian poeples. Mahmoud abbas is clearly a joke to the Palestinians, and it seems between the two factions, Hamas are the ones who are really fighting for Palestinian rights. I think it was che who said that a resisting force, can not survive with out the support of the people, 1st.

Israel is the oppressor, unless you fight such an oppressor, you only work for them by maintianing a status quo, thus, you oppress your own peoples.

Also, to my understanding, amensty international were born amidst the crimes of South america, pinochet, the Junta etc. From what i read, the majority of the human righst abuses were done for political means, rather than just shear tyranny. Any trade union leaders, or political opposition members, would be rounded up and sent to tourture labs, many of whom, would only be returned after mutilation.

knowing that they themselves could be locked up and tortured, Amnesty faced an impossible dillema, how could they report such abuses from the government, with out facing the same punishment for 'treason'.

Amnesty do deserve credit for their documentation of Human rights abuses, however, its hard not to critizise them for their lack information as to the REASON for such human rights abuses. To document and report such tragedies is a good thing, but to then ignore the reasons behind such atrocities, almost defies the purpose, in my opinion.

How can we prevent such tragedies in the future, unless it publically known? In this respect, i agree that Amnesty International serve imprialist agendas instead of humanist ( if thats even a word :), but i think you know what i mean ). The information they collect, instead of being used to prove the inlovement of the colonising force, they are just used as further evidence that the nation in conflict, is such an undemocratic place, that the west MUST intervene to 'save' the people, when in fact, it is the west who caused such atrocities.

[manic expression]

Difference being, the partisans engaged in armed combat with guns, as did the Spanish volunteers. They fought a war beyond sending a few token home made rockets into Israel.

Yeah, and Hamas engages in armed combat with guns, too. The fact that they use rockets (which you patronizingly call "token", even though they're the only sort of artillery available to the Palestinian people) does not separate them from those movements I mentioned. Not one bit.

You don't think the Spanish Republicans engaged in extreme measures? They killed Catholic priests without batting an eyelash and carried out vendettas. The anti-apartheid resistance (including the MK) routinely attacked "civilian targets" with "token home made" terrorist bombs. I await your denunciation of both movements.


The apartheid protests were part of a wider campaign that actually succeeded, too. If the partisans and Spanish volunteers had squatted throughout their respective wars and fired rockets randomly into areas where they fought Franco's forces were, then they would have been useless, just like Hamas. Instead they actually fought on the front lines agains tthe fascists. Hamas are useless and you should know they will never succeed.

:lol: So you're saying that if a movement doesn't win total victory, it's worthless? This, coming from an anarchist with an avatar of the POUM!? The irony is almost too rich to bear. Nevertheless, your argument is nonexistent: Hamas' tactics only really depart from that of the aforementioned groups because of available men and material. Many of the Spanish Republicans, you should remember, having lost the Civil War, turned to so-called "terrorism". Like I said, crack open a book once in awhile:

http://www.akpress.org/2006/items/assassinationattemptonfrancofromtheair

And that's not even taking into account the attacks on civilians carried out during the Civil War itself.

As for South Africa, the anti-apartheid "protests" ended up as massacres in places like Sharpeville, and so the anti-apartheid struggle turned to the rifle and the bomb and so-called "terrorism", and they were perfectly justified to do so. Again, if your logic is applied consistently, they were no more "useless" and no less "useless" than Hamas. Well done, I suppose we should expect you to be issuing a few more condemnations shortly.

[Sam_b]

They fought a war beyond sending a few token home made rockets into Israel.


And this is exactly the problem you have, and what makes your argument ridiculous. You still seem to believe that Hamas are some sort of isolated organisation in Palestine, and its only a few of these marginalised 'reactionaries' sending 'a few token rockets' into Israel to further their own agenda.

This is blatantly rubbish. Who is fighting a war with Israel (though I prefer to phrase it as 'conducting resistance to the Israeli state)? Its the Palestinian people themselves, not some bunch of fanatics. The Palestinian people consistently support Hamas in Gaza because they are the vehicle which they use to resist imperialism, and unlike other parties, will not conspire with the Israeli state to weaken such resistance. If you condemn Hamas point-blank in the language you do you condemn a huge sway of Palestinian workers and their choice to fight rather than to lie down and die. Its disgusting.

[S. Zetor]

While I think AI does a lot of good work, its liberalist blindness to its own ideology cannot be denied. On their website they claim:
We have a number of safeguards in place to protect our autonomy. We are [..] independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/about-amnesty-international
To say that you're "independent of any political ideology" is really the ultimate denial of politics. They talk as if the whole human rights discourse had nothing to do with politics, and was free of seeing the world in any particular way. To interpret the world and to have values (e.g. respect for human rights) is already a political act, as is any denial of human rights (or any intermediate position) as well.

It's the same when you say that you're "not taking sides" -- in a massive conflict where people do take sides that means you're siding with whoever is winning. To that extent they are (also) apologists for imperialism and all that comes with it. Paul de Rooij, whose writings were already linked to, is completely right on Amnesty International.

Re Comrade Alastair's claim that "There is no such thing as human rights and revolutionaries do not think in or use such ridiculous notions", i disagree. I mean, I agree that people are certainly not born with a bunch of rights in the UN declaration way, that they "have" rights or some such idealist formulation.

But I believe Comrade Alastair commits an ultraleft error by dismissing the politics of human rights like this. In my view, besides naturally being so much idealistic nonsense, human rights can also make meaningful politics, as people might start believing that they "have" these and these rights, and thus encouraged to organise and fight for these rights. In the process of fighting for their rights (that they supposedly "have") they come to realise those very rights.

I believe that people in general are much less confused about the liberal-philosophical side of "human rights" than Comrade Alastair's dismissal suggests. If I say to a person, "do you believe you have the right to be fed, the right to a dwelling, the right to be in good health", they don't think in terms of the UN declaration formulations, but instead say "you bet I do", and they're completely right.

People's struggle for their well-being and against oppression doesn't need to take on the guise of "human rights", but it is possible that it does. And if it does, I see nothing wrong with it. On the contrary, I would think it harmful if someone tried to persuade people that they have to absorb some other ideology first before they can start fighting for their rights "properly".

[Random Precision]

And tell me young man

I doubt that I'm even a year younger than you.


what are these differences then? The whole issue of "protecting your family" has been a staple to all calls for national defense.

I don't think I even have to bother explaining that not all of what you call "calls for national defense" use that rhetoric honestly. I don't feel like dissecting all your examples, but just briefly it's not exactly the case that the Soviet Union had been occupying Germany since 1880 and carrying out indiscriminate violence against German civilians while moving Russians into German territory to increase their control over it, for instance.


Your position is such a slippery slope that if the american state for some reason invaded mexico you would cheer for the forceful drafting (we have forced military service) of my friends and family.

I guess there's a reason why the slippery slope is considered a logical fallacy. But since I know that this is your favorite example to caricature people who support national liberation efforts, let me save you a bit of worrying. I think that if your friends and family decided to resist this potential invasion from the United States by joining the Mexican army or by forming their own groups, it would be a legitimate decision. And of course from here I would campaign and organize against the war so that they wouldn't have to be in that situation for long.


I am not tellng them to do anything except survive. If they have to shoot israeli soldiers so be it. What you are telling them however, is to place themselves in front of tanks and follow the orders of scum who hide their tail in damascus.

I'll leave telling people halfway across the world what to do to the communist left. My job as a citizen of the country that's propping up the Israeli occupation is to organize against my own state so that Palestinians will have an easier time of it overthrowing the occupation. But I do think their resistance to the occupation is legitimate whether they choose to do it through Hamas or organize a class-based resistance as an alternative, which is obviously what I hope for.


You call the communist left "detached", I think all the leftists are detached if they think there is any possibility that a pseudo-state armed with homemade weapons who has declared total war to one of the best armed states in the whole world (and right in its border) can do anything to better the situation except excarberate it more (by throwing sugar rockets at random civilians).

Tu quoque is another logical fallacy, but in any case as I already said I support the legitimate resistance of Palestinians against Israeli occupation and apartheid through whatever means they see fit.


What is happening in Palestine is awful and I already know this. However, one has to wonder if your fancy centrist theories on "imperialism" which according to you are up to date, are the real deal with all the mugabes, amin idis, and blood diamond gangs that emerged out of them.

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about.


One has also to wonder about the "non-impotence" of your fancy theories if it translates to ridicolous calls of "socialist states" being established through the victory of reactionary mullahs against one of the most powerful states in the whole
world.

When the Palestinian workers seek to establish socialism in their country, it would certainly be helpful if they weren't living under an Israeli occupation at that time.


One has also to wonder how is declaring total war anything good for the palestinians who live in there.

They've done it a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine) few (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947–1948_Civil_War_in_Palestine) times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada) already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada), so you've got to wonder what they think they have to lose.

[Pogue]

Yeah, and Hamas engages in armed combat with guns, too. The fact that they use rockets (which you patronizingly call "token", even though they're the only sort of artillery available to the Palestinian people) does not separate them from those movements I mentioned. Not one bit.

You don't think the Spanish Republicans engaged in extreme measures? They killed Catholic priests without batting an eyelash and carried out vendettas. The anti-apartheid resistance (including the MK) routinely attacked "civilian targets" with "token home made" terrorist bombs. I await your denunciation of both movements.



:lol: So you're saying that if a movement doesn't win total victory, it's worthless? This, coming from an anarchist with an avatar of the POUM!? The irony is almost too rich to bear. Nevertheless, your argument is nonexistent: Hamas' tactics only really depart from that of the aforementioned groups because of available men and material. Many of the Spanish Republicans, you should remember, having lost the Civil War, turned to so-called "terrorism". Like I said, crack open a book once in awhile:

http://www.akpress.org/2006/items/assassinationattemptonfrancofromtheair

And that's not even taking into account the attacks on civilians carried out during the Civil War itself.

As for South Africa, the anti-apartheid "protests" ended up as massacres in places like Sharpeville, and so the anti-apartheid struggle turned to the rifle and the bomb and so-called "terrorism", and they were perfectly justified to do so. Again, if your logic is applied consistently, they were no more "useless" and no less "useless" than Hamas. Well done, I suppose we should expect you to be issuing a few more condemnations shortly.

I don't get the whole POUM irony. I like the POUM because I read about them in Homage To Catalonia, I enjoyed the book, I respect the people who were in it, and also because I liked the film Land & Freedom.

The POUM were a group of revolutionary socialists who fought against the fascists in Spain, made up of workers with a clear goal. They also suffered from Stalinist repression, and were thus defeated. I respect such a group and I noticed I'm the only one with such an avatar. So I kept it. Stop attacking my avatar now please.

Hamas, on the other hand, is an incredibly reactionary organisation headed by nut jobs with a crackpot ideology which spews out anti-semetic bullshit and crushes strikes. They're not a peoples militia, and they're certainly not concerned with the plight of the Palestinian working class beyond using them as cannon fodder so they can carry on in their ideologically motivated war which is unwinnable. We know actions from a small group of 'guerillas' (if you can even call them that) wont help the Palestinians, the same way we knew the IRA alone wasn't going to get the British Army out of Ireland. The only solution to the problems of Palestinians, the same as the solution to all the plights of oppressed people across the world, is class unity and revolution to a socialist society.

I don't really want to fuck around supporting a group who don't give a shit for the suffering of my class just because Tony Cliff or someone says its the right thing to do. I'll carry on supporting the Palestinians in my capacity.

[Pogue]

And this is exactly the problem you have, and what makes your argument ridiculous. You still seem to believe that Hamas are some sort of isolated organisation in Palestine, and its only a few of these marginalised 'reactionaries' sending 'a few token rockets' into Israel to further their own agenda.

This is blatantly rubbish. Who is fighting a war with Israel (though I prefer to phrase it as 'conducting resistance to the Israeli state)? Its the Palestinian people themselves, not some bunch of fanatics. The Palestinian people consistently support Hamas in Gaza because they are the vehicle which they use to resist imperialism, and unlike other parties, will not conspire with the Israeli state to weaken such resistance. If you condemn Hamas point-blank in the language you do you condemn a huge sway of Palestinian workers and their choice to fight rather than to lie down and die. Its disgusting.

I support the Palestinian people whilst recognising the futility of them rallying behind an organisation which has a batshit ideology backed up by anti-working class actions and anti-semetic theory.

I find you apologising for such an organisation as Hamas bewildering and non-sensical, and personally I wont defend Hamas and support calls for the Palestinian people for shooting themselves in the leg.

Say for example a mircale happened and Hamas, using their homemade rockets, managed to defeat the IDF and gain major concessions from Israel, say real reigonal autonomy, or hell, even the whole of the occupied lands. We'd then have a bourgeois, anti-worker government wiht a deep contempt for jews and homosexuals in power, and the Palestinians would have to carry out a whole new struggle against another enemy, this time 'home grown'.

Hamas can't win, if they did, the working class would still suffer. Hence, I don't support bat-shit crazy reactionaries such as Hamas, the same as how I don't support murderous puppet state regimes such as Israel. I support the working class of Palestine, and would encourage them (as we encourage every worker of every nature) to stop rallying behind their class enemies. Unfortunately, supporting the working class against reacitonary organisations doesn't seem to be the in-thing in the 'anti-imperialist' circles. :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

ill reply when i have time but


I doubt that I'm even a year younger than you.

i dont mean to patronize you this is the way i speak around friends! even older people than me. i am sorry if it offended you.

[Sam_b]

I'm not going to bother giving your ridiculous circle-arguments much space. As well as your usual loaded language that you include in every single post on the subject (see 'anti-working class', 'batshit reactionaries') which you use rather than giving a rational argument. However, from your last post I deduce a couple of things.

1. You think you know more about conducting resistance to imperialism than Palestinian people actually taking part in resistance.

2. You recognise that Palestinian people are uniting Hamas, but don't recognise that it is these people conducting the resistance, and not the 'batshit reactionaries'.

3. You believe that socialism can be built in Palestine despite the fact that the IDF are flattening the place, and think that this futile idea is better than the legitimate form of resistance the Palestinians are using. Which, by the by, is much wider than just 'firing homemade rockets' (of course, none of your usual bullshit bingo diatribe is actually backed up with anything. If youre saying these things the onus is on yourself to prove it).

The way in which you defend your POUM avatar because you saw them represented in a film you liked shows a much wider problem with your theory and critical apprasal of history. If you are a so-called anarchist, why don't you start acting like one?

[manic expression]

I don't get the whole POUM irony. I like the POUM because I read about them in Homage To Catalonia, I enjoyed the book, I respect the people who were in it, and also because I liked the film Land & Freedom.

The POUM irony is twofold. First, there's the fact that you talked of not succeeding as a measure of an organization's worth. Having the POUM as your avatar when you said this was comic gold.

More importantly, your other reason is just as silly. I enjoyed Band of Brothers, and I respect those involved in the events portrayed in the movie, so couldn't I put up an avatar of the 101st Airborne? Well no, because it would be ridiculous. Having the POUM as your avatar makes about as much sense.


The POUM were a group of revolutionary socialists who fought against the fascists in Spain, made up of workers with a clear goal. They also suffered from Stalinist repression, and were thus defeated. I respect such a group and I noticed I'm the only one with such an avatar. So I kept it. Stop attacking my avatar now please.

So everyone who gets repressed by so-called "Stalinists" could feasibly become your avatar? I can't wait for your SR avatar, or perhaps a heroic picture of Bukharin. The point is that it makes no sense given your politics, and it borders on laughable to have an anarchist with a red-flag hammer-and-sickle avatar. I could just as easily put up an avatar of the Vatican because of Catholic involvement in socialist struggles. It makes no sense. Being offended doesn't change this fact.


Hamas, on the other hand, is an incredibly reactionary organisation headed by nut jobs with a crackpot ideology which spews out anti-semetic bullshit and crushes strikes. They're not a peoples militia, and they're certainly not concerned with the plight of the Palestinian working class beyond using them as cannon fodder so they can carry on in their ideologically motivated war which is unwinnable. We know actions from a small group of 'guerillas' (if you can even call them that) wont help the Palestinians, the same way we knew the IRA alone wasn't going to get the British Army out of Ireland. The only solution to the problems of Palestinians, the same as the solution to all the plights of oppressed people across the world, is class unity and revolution to a socialist society.

Socialists support Hamas only insofar as they oppose imperialism. Have we lauded their stances on social issues? No. Have we said Hamas represents Palestine's ultimate future? No. Your arguments are strawmen, and irrelevant strawmen at that.

Hamas IS concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people and they put their money where their collective mouth is. As I said, they devote much of their annual budget to an extensive social network. They continually confront Israeli violence with resistance. Under your logic, the French Resistance, the anti-apartheid resistance and the Spanish Republicans were just as bad as Hamas: god forbid we use violence to oppose imperialist violence.

Further, this isn't really about "winning" or "losing", it's about self-defense first and foremost. The fact that you can't grasp this just shows how little you understand about the conflict. Whenever you babble about the "unwinnable" nature of the Palestinian struggle, you really mean you are either unable or unwilling to fight imperialism.


I don't really want to fuck around supporting a group who don't give a shit for the suffering of my class just because Tony Cliff or someone says its the right thing to do. I'll carry on supporting the Palestinians in my capacity.

"In your capacity"? How true.

Tell you what. When you can figure out what imperialism actually is, and what the position of Hamas is in the struggle, then you might be able to piece together some sort of argument. At this point, you keep ignoring the essential facts in play: Hamas provides CRUCIAL everyday services to the Palestinian people, Hamas is supported by the Palestinian working class and Hamas is singularly opposing imperialism.

The only criticisms you've levelled against Hamas could just as accurately be applied to the anti-apartheid struggle, the anti-Nazi resistance and the Spanish Republicans. In a word, the only criticisms you've brought up are absurd.

[Pogue]

The POUM irony is twofold. First, there's the fact that you talked of not succeeding as a measure of an organization's worth. Having the POUM as your avatar when you said this was comic gold.

More importantly, your other reason is just as silly. I enjoyed Band of Brothers, and I respect those involved in the events portrayed in the movie, so couldn't I put up an avatar of the 101st Airborne? Well no, because it would be ridiculous. Having the POUM as your avatar makes about as much sense.



So everyone who gets repressed by so-called "Stalinists" could feasibly become your avatar? I can't wait for your SR avatar, or perhaps a heroic picture of Bukharin. The point is that it makes no sense given your politics, and it borders on laughable to have an anarchist with a red-flag hammer-and-sickle avatar. I could just as easily put up an avatar of the Vatican because of Catholic involvement in socialist struggles. It makes no sense. Being offended doesn't change this fact.



Socialists support Hamas only insofar as they oppose imperialism. Have we lauded their stances on social issues? No. Have we said Hamas represents Palestine's ultimate future? No. Your arguments are strawmen, and irrelevant strawmen at that.

Hamas IS concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people and they put their money where their collective mouth is. As I said, they devote much of their annual budget to an extensive social network. They continually confront Israeli violence with resistance. Under your logic, the French Resistance, the anti-apartheid resistance and the Spanish Republicans were just as bad as Hamas: god forbid we use violence to oppose imperialist violence.

Further, this isn't really about "winning" or "losing", it's about self-defense first and foremost. The fact that you can't grasp this just shows how little you understand about the conflict. Whenever you babble about the "unwinnable" nature of the Palestinian struggle, you really mean you are either unable or unwilling to fight imperialism.



"In your capacity"? How true.

Tell you what. When you can figure out what imperialism actually is, and what the position of Hamas is in the struggle, then you might be able to piece together some sort of argument. At this point, you keep ignoring the essential facts in play: Hamas provides CRUCIAL everyday services to the Palestinian people, Hamas is supported by the Palestinian working class and Hamas is singularly opposing imperialism.

The only criticisms you've levelled against Hamas could just as accurately be applied to the anti-apartheid struggle, the anti-Nazi resistance and the Spanish Republicans. In a word, the only criticisms you've brought up are absurd.

You hilight my particpation in the Palestine campaign. How wonderful. I'm sure you're tpying to me about this on board the SS Internationalist as you bravely defy the blockade, laden with guns, off to join your comrades Hamas in the anti-imperialist sturggle.

I was involved in all the protests and solidarity actions with Palestine over here. I'm sure you maybe signed the token online petition or so. Well done, you win the prize.

I'm not that far form the POUM really. They supported the social-revolution in Spain which was very libertarian communist and dominated by anarchists. They were pretty homogenous with the CNT, especially when they were persecuted alongside them by the Stalinists. Also, as an Anarchist, I want to acheive a communist society. So a hammer and sickle isn't really that alien to my views, is it?

The crucial difference, once more, between Hamas and those movements you mentioned is

a) Their ideology

B) Their goals

c) Their methods.

Hamas is a) Radical Islamist, as opposed to the groups you mentioned, which were all left wing and anti-fascist

b) Hamas wants a society where Jews and homosexuals are persecuted and everyone follows the rules of their ideology, outlined above

and

c) Hamas has in the past carried out bomb attacks agaisnt civilians, and fires rockets without a great deal of accuracy into Israel. The Partisans carried out armed combat in the streets using guns, specifically targetting Nazis.

The POUM fought a full scale open war against the fascists.

The anti-apartheid campaigners carried out sabotage, general publicity, boycotts etc.

Theres your difference.

Also, on the question of providing social welfare to people - yeh, thats what governments are meant to do. Thats what Israel does to its citizens, what every bourgeois state does to its citizens. This doesn't make them good and doesn't ignore thet bad they do (strike breaking, spreading of reactionary propoganda, etc.).

[Pogue]

In short, my criticisms are not absurd. I'd see it as a pretty standard revolutionary stance to support the Palestinians putting their hopes and support to reacitonary organisations which are not going to solve their problems. I don't see why groups like the RAF would be opposed for being focoist elitist, etc and Hamas supported. Small armed groups are not the way to defeat global capitalism, especially not when they are led by reactionaries.

[Sam_b]

So a hammer and sickle isn't really that alien to my views, is it?


But then POUM weren't the biggest fans of anarchists, were they? The avatar makes as much sense as me having an AFED logo in my user profile.


POUM fought a full scale open war against the fascists

So? The British Army in WW2 fought a full scale open war against the Nazis. Stalinists fought a full scale open war against the fascists in Spain. Hell, some moderate and centrist groups fought a full scale open war against the fascists. So what? Will you be putting an avatar of Field Marshall Montgomery on your avatar next? Why not properly address the criticisms raised against you by Manic Expression. I for one agree with him.


anti-apartheid campaigners carried out sabotage, general publicity, boycotts etc

...Whilst the ANC carried out attacks against civilians. So are you going to come out and denounce the ANC?

And as many times as you keep putting the strawman of 'Islamo-fascism' in here (again you haven'tt given any evidence to support your arguments), you ignore that at least a dozen comrades on here have made an important distinguishment between supporting the ideological aims of the Hamas leadership, and the mass movement of people from below conducting resistance. Your consistency in strawmen arguments shows you can not make any distinctions, and thus must have a poor analysis of most politics. Do we not support the Bolsheviks because Stalin was once a member? So does that mean we should have rejected the Bolsheviks because they stood for purges?

[Cumannach]

I'm not that far form the POUM really. They supported the social-revolution in Spain which was very libertarian communist and wrecked by anarchists.



Fixed that for you.

Answer this;

Suppose one day far in the future you gave up fuming against the muslim fanatics Hamas and somewhere plucked up the courage to visit the Gaza strip yourself. You manage to get through the genocidal Israeli blockade and once inside find yourself at the unlucky misfortune of being right in the center of a new Israeli mass murder incursion. Israeli tanks are busy trying to make a hospital or school collapse in on the palestinian civilians hiding inside it. The only people attempting to stop them are a band of Hamas militants that need another pair of hands to take up a position on the far side of the Israeli terrorists, and they shove a rifle at you, asking you take up that position with them and start firing on the soldiers.
Are you saying the responsible action for any good socialist to take is to refuse to participate on the grounds that, "you are not orthodox marxists Hamas, and I believe only the working class can lead the Palestinian people to final and complete liberation, in true Communism, with an abundance of goods for all, and everybody will do direct exchange and barter, and no one will be able to tell me what to do, cause authority is wrong!"

[Pogue]

But then POUM weren't the biggest fans of anarchists, were they? The avatar makes as much sense as me having an AFED logo in my user profile.



So? The British Army in WW2 fought a full scale open war against the Nazis. Stalinists fought a full scale open war against the fascists in Spain. Hell, some moderate and centrist groups fought a full scale open war against the fascists. So what? Will you be putting an avatar of Field Marshall Montgomery on your avatar next? Why not properly address the criticisms raised against you by Manic Expression. I for one agree with him.



...Whilst the ANC carried out attacks against civilians. So are you going to come out and denounce the ANC?

And as many times as you keep putting the strawman of 'Islamo-fascism' in here (again you haven'tt given any evidence to support your arguments), you ignore that at least a dozen comrades on here have made an important distinguishment between supporting the ideological aims of the Hamas leadership, and the mass movement of people from below conducting resistance. Your consistency in strawmen arguments shows you can not make any distinctions, and thus must have a poor analysis of most politics. Do we not support the Bolsheviks because Stalin was once a member? So does that mean we should have rejected the Bolsheviks because they stood for purges?

What are you talking about? The POUM militias often contained anarchists and they fought together in the name of the revolution and against the fascists and Stalinists. Have you not read into the Spanish Civil War history? You've just lied completely about history!

The POUM were ideologically very close to the anarchists. In fact what ism they were was irrelevant - they were involved in a genuine proletarian revolution and wer einvolved in militant anti-fascism alongside the anarchists, and were persecuted in equal measure by the Stalinists. Because they were practically indistinguishable from the anarchists, and were a bold party, true to the proletariat and their allies, I support them. Theres nothing controversial in that at all, lol. Its lie saying the Anarchists shouldnt have eaten with and helped their POUM comrades because the POUM used the hammer and sickle on their flags! They were pretty much one and the same during the conflict, and because I admire their combatants, I use their flag as my avatar.


I don't know to what extent the ANC terroist attacks were supported by the leadership or those in the struggle at large because I don't know much about that time to comment. Certainly I don't think terrorism against civilians is a justifiable act. All I could say is that I supported the goals of the ANC alot more than I do the goals of Hamas. With Hamas, they carry out terrorism as a shite anti-worker tactic and their ultimate goal is more shite anti-worker tactics.

I don't support the Bolsheviks. Their whole approach was wrong, and was doomed to fail. Lenin and Trotsky were guilty of being anti-worker, anti-revolutionary and anti-socialist too. I wouldn't just not support a group because they once had a shite member though. That'd be stupid. I don't support Hamas because their whole idoelogy and tactics have form the very beginning been reacitonary and anti-working class.

[Sam_b]

The POUM militias often contained anarchists and they fought together in the name of the revolution and against the fascists and Stalinists. Have you not read into the Spanish Civil War history? You've just lied completely about history!


Ah, but like you with Hamas I am regarding the whole of POUM by leadership only.


With Hamas, they carry out terrorism as a shite anti-worker tactic and their ultimate goal is more shite anti-worker tactics.


Lies. Who in Hamas carries out such 'terrorism'? And by this you show yourself up yet again to have no grasp or understanding about why such events would take place. Also, youre merely trying to avoid the question. Its obvious you know little about Hamas but are lightning-fast to condemn them for almost everything under the sun, again unsourced. So don't use that excuse about the ANC. Either you admit you cannot adequately criticise Hamas for knowing little about the subject or be consistent with your politics and outrightly condemn the whole of the ANC for carrying out attacks which targeted civilians, both directly and indirectly.


I don't support Hamas because their whole idoelogy and tactics have form the very beginning been reacitonary and anti-working class.

You have no idea about what the tactics of Hamas, as has been shown by Manic Expression and Random Precision. I don't think its very working class to condemn the Palestinian workers for fighting back, when the other choice is to get rolled over by imperialism to a further extent.

You are so inconsistent its laughable. Do you condemn the Palestinian workers for exercising their right to resist? And if not why do you then make ridiculous generalisations and label every attack by Palestinian workers under Hamas as 'terrorism'?

[Pogue]

Fixed that for you.

Answer this;

Suppose one day far in the future you gave up fuming against the muslim fanatics Hamas and somewhere plucked up the courage to visit the Gaza strip yourself. You manage to get through the genocidal Israeli blockade and once inside find yourself at the unlucky misfortune of being right in the center of a new Israeli mass murder incursion. Israeli tanks are busy trying to make a hospital or school collapse in on the palestinian civilians hiding inside it. The only people attempting to stop them are a band of Hamas militants that need another pair of hands to take up a position on the far side of the Israeli terrorists, and they shove a rifle at you, asking you take up that position with them and start firing on the soldiers.
Are you saying the responsible action for any good socialist to take is to refuse to participate on the grounds that, "you are not orthodox marxists Hamas, and I believe only the working class can lead the Palestinian people to final and complete liberation, in true Communism, with an abundance of goods for all, and everybody will do direct exchange and barter, and no one will be able to tell me what to do, cause authority is wrong!"

I don't see any rational, logical or sane analysis that could conclude that the anarchists were responsible for wrecking the revolution when they were the revolution. They created it. They participated in it. Your analysis would not fit in with any historical evidence. Its clear who crushed it. Who imprisoned POUM and anarchist leaders? Who attacked the Telephone exchange? Who denounced the POUM and anarchists as fascists? The Stalinist leadership of the Republican side. I'll have this debate happily with you.

In regards to the second part of your post, using emotional ranting doesn't win anything. Having been, as I've previously mentioned, extremely active in the Palestine protests, I understand the realities of whats going on there as well as anyone on this board could.

I don't fully understand this part of your post because you didn't write it in a coherent manner, but I'll try to respond.

If I was there, I'd encourage Palestinians to work together, to try and escape to safety, to help their neighbours. I'd encourage them to take whatever help they'd get. But I wouldn't tell them to love and support Hamas. And I wouldn't join with Hamas. Because for Hamas, their priority is following their batshit ideology. They want to use the ordinary Palestinians as a meat shield. They will fuck over and let the Palestinians die if they have too. Hamas are a bourgeois organisation who hold bourgeois power. They may offer some social benefits to Palestinians. All states, governments, etc, do this. I'd encourage the Palestinians to take any scraps Hamas throw them, but still not support them. I'd tell them to survive. To try and help each other. Just do what they can. In the short term, do whatever you can to survive.

That does not in anyway translate to supporting Hamas. Because supporting Hamas wont end their problems. Only a social revolution would. This would mean uniting with their class brothers in Israel and overthrowing the Israeli state along with Hamas. Hamas, being anti-semetic nut jobs, want to divide the working class along ethnic/religious lines. Hence, they continue the conflict, they strengthen it, in short they don't help the working class. Hence, I oppose Hamas.

[Pogue]

Ah, but like you with Hamas I am regarding the whole of POUM by leadership only.



Lies. Who in Hamas carries out such 'terrorism'? And by this you show yourself up yet again to have no grasp or understanding about why such events would take place. Also, youre merely trying to avoid the question. Its obvious you know little about Hamas but are lightning-fast to condemn them for almost everything under the sun, again unsourced. So don't use that excuse about the ANC. Either you admit you cannot adequately criticise Hamas for knowing little about the subject or be consistent with your politics and outrightly condemn the whole of the ANC for carrying out attacks which targeted civilians, both directly and indirectly.



You have no idea about what the tactics of Hamas, as has been shown by Manic Expression and Random Precision. I don't think its very working class to condemn the Palestinian workers for fighting back, when the other choice is to get rolled over by imperialism to a further extent.

You are so inconsistent its laughable. Do you condemn the Palestinian workers for exercising their right to resist? And if not why do you then make ridiculous generalisations and label every attack by Palestinian workers under Hamas as 'terrorism'?

Palestinians workers must resist. Thats not the same as openly putting their hopes into Hamas, seeing Hamas as the solution, thinking if Hamas wins everything will be alright. Honestly believing this problem can be solved by Hamas. That is stupid.

The POUM leadership by the way, were all locked up and killed by the Stalinists for fighting alongside their troops and the anarchists.

I'd say Palestinian workers can't really resist at the moment because they're too busy dying as a result of the war between Hamas and Israel. I doubt many of them are too concerned with 'resisting' right now, but when th bombs stop falling, I'd say they should resist by mutual aid and fighting back against the Israeli state and Hamas symultaneously, as both are bourgeoisie and are thus their enemies. As I said, only a revolution would get solve their issues, same as in all countries and conflicts. Class conflict exists until the revolution does away with it.

Hamas terrorism:

http://www.mediamonitors.net/hanania46.html

http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/4/423

They did this as recently as 2006. They claim to have renounced such acts. I think we can be pretty certain that we can't accept the word of bourgeois reactionary groups that also deny the Holocaust, the same way we don't trust the bourgeoisie of any countries when it promises anything. We can see the lack of credibility in this organisation by their conflicting and shifting view son the Holocaust, too.

So there is your terrorism. I don't agree with the bombing of civilians. So I don't agree with Hamas.

[Cumannach]

Well would you take the rifle or not?

You seem to disagree with the claim that Hamas actually do find themselves in these kinds of positions, and that they do try to defend the Palestinian people. That's a disagreement about facts. But, leaving aside the disputed facts, supposing a situation like I outlined did in fact exist, would you support Hamas and take the rifle or refuse to help?

If you would support them, you're not really differing substantially from the other posters' position. If you wouldn't, why not?

[Yehuda Stern]

I actually like the analogy to the ANC, and I think it's very correct. An even closer analogy is the PLO - the PLO has several wings, some outright bourgeois-nationalist, some covering themselves up with some socialist and even Marxist (rarely - gasp - Trotskyist) rhetoric. Still, a few decades after the beginning of its 'armed campaign', i.e. terrorism against civilians, the entire PLO collaborates with imperialism against the elected Hamas government.

The lesson? Not to support any of the bourgeois nationalists, like the SWP members seem to me to suggest here (and as their organization does in practice), and not to condemn national liberation struggles (and in practice support imperialism) as a whole like HLVS does, but to be for these struggles while criticizing their reactionary leadership, not for being 'Islamic fascist' or 'reactionary crap,' but for the fact that it is always willing to sell out the struggle for a deal with the imperialists.

[Pogue]

Well would you take the rifle or not?

You seem to disagree with the claim that Hamas actually do find themselves in these kinds of positions, and that they do try to defend the Palestinian people. That's a disagreement about facts. But, leaving aside the disputed facts, supposing a situation like I outlined did in fact exist, would you support Hamas and take the rifle or refuse to help?

If you would support them, you're not really differing substantially from the other posters' position. If you wouldn't, why not?

If I was in Palestine as an aid worker, I'd give aid.

If I was a doctor, I'd try to give people treatment.

If I was there an an human righters observer/lawyer, I'd do that.

If I was there as a native Palestinian, I'd probably be trying to freed my family, or be mourning for my dead, or be in hospital, etc. I wouldn't really be itneresting in getting a rifle and fighting a whole army with it, because I know thats not how states are defeated.

The question is stupid, because if I was offered a rifle by Hamas, it'd be because I was someone who went to fight for them anyway.

In what context would I personally ever be in a position to take a rifle from Hamas?

Some people fight for them, yes. I'd say these people have the wrong approach and are misguided.

[skki]

I'm loving the attempts to associate the POUM with Hamas. I just finished Homage to Catalonia today, and for one thing I'm pretty sure Anarchists were present in the POUM. And George Orwell didn't mention anything about being ordered to murder catholic priests. Their orders seemed to consist entirely of shooting at fascists. A noble pastime.

[Pogue]

I actually like the analogy to the ANC, and I think it's very correct. An even closer analogy is the PLO - the PLO has several wings, some outright bourgeois-nationalist, some covering themselves up with some socialist and even Marxist (rarely - gasp - Trotskyist) rhetoric. Still, a few decades after the beginning of its 'armed campaign', i.e. terrorism against civilians, the entire PLO collaborates with imperialism against the elected Hamas government.

The lesson? Not to support any of the bourgeois nationalists, like the SWP members seem to me to suggest here (and as their organization does in practice), and not to condemn national liberation struggles (and in practice support imperialism) as a whole like HLVS does, but to be for these struggles while criticizing their reactionary leadership, not for being 'Islamic fascist' or 'reactionary crap,' but for the fact that it is always willing to sell out the struggle for a deal with the imperialists.

I get frustatred with the paddle pro national liberation 'ists' use to beat libertarian socialists with. We don't see the point in supporting one bourgeoise over another, and we recognise, form history and general analysis, that being ruled by homegrown bosses is no better than being ruled by foreign bosses. Hence, we don't support Imperialists or national liberationists, we support the working class over the bourgeoisie class.

[skki]

You seem to disagree with the claim that Hamas actually do find themselves in these kinds of positions, and that they do try to defend the Palestinian people.
I seem to remember a report somewhere about Hamas fighters being trained to use Palestinian civilians as human shields.

I'll have a look for it.

[Yehuda Stern]

being ruled by homegrown bosses is no better than being ruled by foreign bosses. Hence, we don't support Imperialists or national liberationists, we support the working class over the bourgeoisie class.

This lesson can only be "learned" by someone who has no idea what occupation is, what oppression is, and the piece of ultra left wisdom at the end of it only serves to highlight that fact. Of course revolutionaries support the working class against the bourgeoisie, but the question is how to do that, how to effectively defeat the bourgeoisie. Certainly the class struggle in Palestine can have only the smallest effect under Zionist occupation. Revolutionaries must find the way to defeat that occupation to free the power of the Palestinian proletariat. People who deny this simple fact just have no idea of the structure of the Zionist occupation.

[Sam_b]

Palestinians workers must resist. Thats not the same as openly putting their hopes into Hamas, seeing Hamas as the solution, thinking if Hamas wins everything will be alright. Honestly believing this problem can be solved by Hamas. That is stupid.

You don't get it, do you? The mass of Palestinian workers are Hamas. They are the ones themselves carrying out the resistance.

Its also fantastic that you are calling for Palestinian workers to compromise their resistance by simultaneously attacking Hamas and the IDF. Is it a fair assumption that you want to destabalise Palestine further then, seeing as Hamas are distributing aid to the poor and those who have had their homes destroyed, and like Hezbollah in Lebanon, are trying to rebuild Gaza?

Also its not surprising you support Amnesty given your sources. The first one, for instance, riddled with sources from BBC (which STW has shown to be giving biased coverage) and the Jerusalem Post. Hmm...I wonder which side that particular newspaper are on?

I should also add as a footnote: nice one for showing you have no understanding in the slightest of the material conditions that lead to suicide bombing. You want to know whose responsible for this? The IDF. That is all.

[Pogue]

You don't get it, do you? The mass of Palestinian workers are Hamas. They are the ones themselves carrying out the resistance.

Its also fantastic that you are calling for Palestinian workers to compromise their resistance by simultaneously attacking Hamas and the IDF. Is it a fair assumption that you want to destabalise Palestine further then, seeing as Hamas are distributing aid to the poor and those who have had their homes destroyed, and like Hezbollah in Lebanon, are trying to rebuild Gaza?

Also its not surprising you support Amnesty given your sources. The first one, for instance, riddled with sources from BBC (which STW has shown to be giving biased coverage) and the Jerusalem Post. Hmm...I wonder which side that particular newspaper are on?

I should also add as a footnote: nice one for showing you have no understanding in the slightest of the material conditions that lead to suicide bombing. You want to know whose responsible for this? The IDF. That is all.

If the IDF are responsible, why punish Israeli civilians? Makes no sense to me. But at least you've realised you were worng in denying they carrie dout these attacks in the first place. I'm sure that dented your pride a bit because it showed how misinformed you are.

What sort of Gaza do Hamas want to rebuild anyway?

And also, you're telling me every single Palestinian is the one shooting the rockets off into Israel? Whatever. Hamas are giving aid. Yes, of course. Thats what they're meant to do as government. If there was an war between britain and france, both governments would give aid to their people. But this doesnt justify the goals and acitons of the group. Hamas's main priority is implementing their reactionary policies and society. Aid is just the typical bourgeois scraps from the table.

[Sam_b]

If the IDF are responsible, why punish Israeli civilians? Makes no sense to me. But at least you've realised you were worng in denying they carrie dout these attacks in the first place. I'm sure that dented your pride a bit because it showed how misinformed you are.

No, not in the slightest. I don't think anyone on here has denied that suicide bombing does take place. I think it shows how misinformed you are when you are ranting on about such acts as 'terrorism', but won't give the same post space to the very real state-sponsored terrorism carried out by the IDF.

Do you think there would be any suicide bombers if the IDF and Israel hadn't carried out genocidal acts against the Palestinians from Israel's very formation. It takes a very real and very brutal form of helplessness and oppression to make someone strap bombs to themselves and to blow themselves up. But the fact that the IDF carry out attacks against civilians makes some people think that this is the best form of retaliation to that. Just thinking about it is exceptionally saddening.


What sort of Gaza do Hamas want to rebuild anyway?


Missing the point. Deal with the real question here, and face facts: Hamas distribute a hell of a lot of aid, and you want to cut this off with your patrionising, chauvenist tactic and misguided view that building socialism can happen when a nation is oppressed by imperialism. What examples do you have to back this up, anyway?


you're telling me every single Palestinian is the one shooting the rockets off into Israel? Whatever.

Nice strawman. Can you still not make any distinctions between leadership and rank-and-file?


If there was an war between britain and france, both governments would give aid to their people. But this doesnt justify the goals and acitons of the group

Why do you keep trying to compare the struggle of oppressed nations by imperialism to wars of imperialist nations?

So, do you think that:
@ the Jerusalem Post and BBC are valid and unbiased sources?
@ do you condemn the ANC because of its targeting of civilians? If not, why not, and why do you try and fob off the question by claiming to know little about the ANC, when you've been shown to know little about Hamas, and why are you so quick to condemn Hamas but not the ANC in particular?
@ Who within Hamas carries out suicide bombings?

You have yet to answer any of these questions.

[manic expression]

I'm not that far form the POUM really. They supported the social-revolution in Spain which was very libertarian communist and dominated by anarchists. They were pretty homogenous with the CNT, especially when they were persecuted alongside them by the Stalinists. Also, as an Anarchist, I want to acheive a communist society. So a hammer and sickle isn't really that alien to my views, is it?

Stop being naive. The POUM came into conflict with the so-called "Stalinists" because they were, among other things, said to have Trotskyist tendencies; it wasn't because they were anarchists in disguise, as you seem to faithfully believe. Moreover, the fact that you want a classless society doesn't change much: the utopian socialists wanted a classless society. I guess you could throw up a symbol of the utopians, too. However, that would make no sense, as does your present avatar.


The crucial difference, once more, between Hamas and those movements you mentioned is

a) Their ideology

B) Their goals

Not really. The leadership of the ANC turned out to be pretty conservative and pro-capitalist in the end. The French Resistance contained religious fighters as well as nationalists. The Spanish Republicans had all sorts of ideological tendencies within their ranks, including social democrats and non-socialists.

However, all those groups opposed imperialist forces. As does Hamas. That is why they are worthy of support.


c) Their methods.

Not really. The Republicans carried out killings of Catholic clergymen, the MK and other anti-apartheid resistance groups attacked civilian targets and the French Resistance did as well.

Another attempt at dodging the issue. Here's a hint: making blanket statements in list form doesn't mean you have any support.


Hamas is a) Radical Islamist, as opposed to the groups you mentioned, which were all left wing and anti-fascist

b) Hamas wants a society where Jews and homosexuals are persecuted and everyone follows the rules of their ideology, outlined above

That's not true. Hamas has continually stated they envision a society in which Muslims, Jews and Christians can live in peace.

And at any rate, I've already said that socialists support Hamas only insofar as they oppose imperialism. You would do well to wrap your head around this.


and

c) Hamas has in the past carried out bomb attacks agaisnt civilians, and fires rockets without a great deal of accuracy into Israel. The Partisans carried out armed combat in the streets using guns, specifically targetting Nazis.

Your view on history is hopelessly idealistic. The Spanish Republicans certainly did target civilians, the MK bombed shopping malls and the French Resistance (and other groups) didn't fight in the streets until the Allied invasion of occupied France (because they couldn't). Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.


The POUM fought a full scale open war against the fascists.

The anti-apartheid campaigners carried out sabotage, general publicity, boycotts etc.

Theres your difference.

The only difference is the tactical situation, actually, which is something you're too stubborn (or naive) to take into account. The POUM was part of a larger army which had control of Spain at the start of the war, therefore conventional warfare was appropriate and necessary. In addition, the Republicans, while being outgunned in many ways, did have enough men and material to mount a conventional campaign against Franco. Hamas, on the other hand, has no such luxury, and so such tactics would be impossible and suicidal (suicidal tactics, coincidentally, are what the Spanish anarchists became infamous for).

As to the anti-apartheid campaign, you can bet your precious avatar that they hit civilian targets. The only reason Mandela was in prison for so long was because he refused to denounce the armed struggle.

Fun fact: after the UN arms embargo of South Africa, which two countries continued to provide arms to the apartheid state? Taiwan and Israel.


Also, on the question of providing social welfare to people - yeh, thats what governments are meant to do. Thats what Israel does to its citizens, what every bourgeois state does to its citizens. This doesn't make them good and doesn't ignore thet bad they do (strike breaking, spreading of reactionary propoganda, etc.).

What an insane argument. So if Hamas didn't provide services to its people, they would be less like bourgeois governments, and H-L-V-S could support them. You need to realize that Gaza is a cage. There's nothing in it. Hamas isn't handing out food stamps for the unemployed, they're providing life-saving services to a people who have absolutely nothing. That's why they have the support of the Palestinian workers. Who else is engaged in such activities? I thought so.

Once more, think through stuff before you post it. Half the points you made upthread you've already abandoned. First it was that Hamas didn't care about the Palestinian people, and now that you've finally been made to understand they provide practically the only services in Gaza, you say they're too much like a bourgeois government. I'm sure you'll eventually retreat from the rest of your asinine arguments and come up with brand spanking new excuses as to why Israeli imperialism shouldn't be opposed by anyone except for anarchists...and the POUM.

[BobKKKindle$]

so they can carry on in their ideologically motivated war which is unwinnable.Do you have any idea how ignorant you seem when you make comments like this, and describe Hamas as "nutjobs"? Marxists locate ideology as the product of material conditions and as a device used to obscure or justify other objectives rooted in class struggle, and so the idea that Hamas is defending Gaza (or provoking Israel, according to you) against the IDF solely because they are motivated by an ideological fervor with no relation to the interests and demands of people living in Gaza has nothing at all to do with Marxism. Hamas are leading the resistance because the movement is comprised of people who don't want their houses to be destroyed by Israeli tanks and soldiers, and the fact that Hamas continues to receive support from the population in Gaza despite the ongoing blockade and the attacks Hamas has conducted against strikes and other cases of dissent indicates that Israeli militarism (a central aspect of imperialism in the Middle East) is a primary concern for many Palestinian workers - if this were not the case then Hamas would not have been able to win the election in 2006, and they would not have succeeded in rallying popular support against Fatah when relations between the two main Palestinian movements broke down. If you (i.e. a worker living in Gaza) are constantly faced with the danger of being attacked and more than half of the population is suffering from chronic unemployment, then it stands to reason that building trade unions and calling for socialist revolution are not likely to be high on your list of immediate priorities - you can't see this because you totally reject the materialist perspective and choose to see Hamas as a bunch of "nutjobs" who are apparently dragging Palestinians into a resistance struggle without their support or consent. In reality, Hamas is not isolated at all, and they do not function in the same way as political parties in western countries such as the UK because their activities are not limited to running for executive office and administering the state - they are rooted in social and economic life because the services they provide constitute one of the only ways Palestinians can get access to healthcare and education, due to the decision of the EU to eliminate all financial transfers to Gaza following the electoral victory of Hamas in 2006. Hamas has consistently shown itself to have a pragmatic approach when it comes to relations with Israel, further disproving your "nutjob" thesis - rocket attacks conducted by Hamas were totally eliminated after they entered into a ceasefire agreement with Israeli last year, and it was actually Israel that broke the same ceasfire when they murdered Palestinians who were using the tunnels under the Egyptian border to transport food and medical supplies into Gaza. In addition, Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel a longer and more durable ceasefire on the condition that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders and thereby allow for the creation of a stable and economically-viable Palestinian state. Why do you find the idea of a pragmatic and rational Islamist movement so hard to understand? Does it have anything to do with the way you perceive Muslims, by any chance?

By the way, the POUM derived many of its principles from Trotskyism, and Andres Nin, its leader, served as Trotsky's personal secretary after he was exiled. Myself and other people in this thread who have put forward a genuine anti-imperialist stance represent the Trotskyist position on national liberation, and Trotsky would have held the same position if had been alive today, as he consistently declared that revolutionaries have a duty to support all struggles against imperialism and ruthlessly condemn all attacks committed by the imperialist bloc, even when the resistance movements which oppose imperialism are reactionary. Read: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm

[Pogue]

Do you have any idea how ignorant you seem when you make comments like this, and describe Hamas as "nutjobs"? Marxists locate ideology as the product of material conditions and as a device used to obscure or justify other objectives rooted in class struggle, and so the idea that Hamas is defending Gaza (or provoking Israel, according to you) against the IDF solely because they are motivated by an ideological fervor with no relation to the interests and demands of people living in Gaza has nothing at all to do with Marxism. Hamas are leading the resistance because the movement is comprised of people who don't want their houses to be destroyed by Israeli tanks and soldiers, and the fact that Hamas continues to receive support from the population in Gaza despite the ongoing blockade and the attacks Hamas has conducted against strikes and other cases of dissent indicates that Israeli militarism (a central aspect of imperialism in the Middle East) is a primary concern for many Palestinian workers - if this were not the case then Hamas would not have been able to win the election in 2006, and they would not have succeeded in rallying popular support against Fatah when relations between the two main Palestinian movements broke down. If you (i.e. a worker living in Gaza) are constantly faced with the danger of being attacked and more than half of the population is suffering from chronic unemployment, then it stands to reason that building trade unions and calling for socialist revolution are not likely to be high on your list of immediate priorities - you can't see this because you totally reject the materialist perspective and choose to see Hamas as a bunch of "nutjobs" who are apparently dragging Palestinians into a resistance struggle without their support or consent. In reality, Hamas is not isolated at all, and they do not function in the same way as political parties in western countries such as the UK because their activities are not limited to running for executive office and administering the state - they are rooted in social and economic life because the services they provide constitute one of the only ways Palestinians can get access to healthcare and education, due to the decision of the EU to eliminate all financial transfers to Gaza following the electoral victory of Hamas in 2006. Hamas has consistently shown itself to have a pragmatic approach when it comes to relations with Israel, further disproving your "nutjob" thesis - rocket attacks conducted by Hamas were totally eliminated after they entered into a ceasefire agreement with Israeli last year, and it was actually Israel that broke the same ceasfire when they murdered Palestinians who were using the tunnels under the Egyptian border to transport food and medical supplies into Gaza. In addition, Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel a longer and more durable ceasefire on the condition that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders and thereby allow for the creation of a stable and economically-viable Palestinian state. Why do you find the idea of a pragmatic and rational Islamist movement so hard to understand? Does it have anything to do with the way you perceive Muslims, by any chance?

By the way, the POUM derived many of its principles from Trotskyism, and Andres Nin, its leader, served as Trotsky's personal secretary after he was exiled. Myself and other people in this thread who have put forward a genuine anti-imperialist stance represent the Trotskyist position on national liberation, and Trotsky would have held the same position if had been alive today, as he consistently declared that revolutionaries have a duty to support all struggles against imperialism and ruthlessly condemn all attacks committed by the imperialist bloc, even when the resistance movements which oppose imperialism are reactionary. Read: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm

No, according to your view, not Marxism. Also, I'm not a Marxist, so thats irrelevant.

I don't care what Trotsky thought, Trotsky was one man. Also, if you'd taken you research you'd see that the POUM and Nin broke with Trotsky over disagreements in politics. I'm not a Trotskyist, but that doesn't mean I don't respect Trotskyists. I respect the POUM because they were genuine revolutionaries and communists. Because they were actice during a revolutionary period and also a war, I don't think their ideology mattered much anyway, as they were simply revolutionaries and anti-fascists.


Does it have anything to do with the way you perceive Muslims, by any chance?

The last refuge of a desperate man - accusations of me being some sort of Islamophobe. I seriously didn't think you were so spineless and pathetic as to use this.

I have stood with Muslims against charging police and helped them in deal with further brutality in repression on the London protests. I worked alongside Muslims who were my best friends in my workplace.

Some of my best friends are Muslims, and I have been very vocal in defense of Muslims against Islamophobia. I don't need some jumped up, out of touch rich kid in the most elite university in Britain, possibly the world, where the rich and priviliged are educated, who is having his fees solely paid for by mummy and daddy accusing me of Islamophobia, especially not when I've dedicated so much time fighting alongside Muslims and living with them. Your accusation disgusts me and is highly immature and provocative, and is nothing more than a pathetic and slanderous attempt to throw the prejdudice card at me just because I disagree with you, which is something you seem to do alot.

[BobKKKindle$]

Actually, the views on ideology expressed in my post are entirely consistent with Marxism, because Marxists do not view ideas as floating in space, or falling out of the sky - they are are first and foremost the product of the conditions in which people live, and ideology is used primarily as a tool by different class forces in order to justify a particular course of action or obscure the real aims that lie behind it - for example, the invasion of a developing country such as Iraq might be promoted as an attempt to remove an evil dictator and create a flourishing democracy, even though, in reality, the state does not have these aims in mind at all, but is probably carrying out the invasion to enhance the economic interests of the ruling class and provide a base for further invasions in the future against neighboring countries, such as Iran in the case of Iraq. This would be an example of ideology fulfilling its mystifying function. If we adopt this Marxist view of ideology (which is also my view, obviously, but it is not unique to me) then it also becomes clear that material conditions, such as living under the occupation of an imperialist power, cannot be understood as the result of an ideology imposing itself on the world. Instead, ideology emerges out of these material experiences, even if, once they have emerged, ideas may also influence the way people interact with their conditions and surrounding environments. The anti-semitic components of Hamas can be attributed to the fact that the population of Gaza has been continuously faced with attacks from a state comprised almost solely of Jewish individuals for more than half a century - in the absence of a socialist voice, it is easy to see how this would lead people to assume that Jewish people throughout the world can be held collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli state, and why the supporters of Hamas might view Jewish people as fundamentally evil, even those who are strongly oppossed to Zionism. It is often the case that the actions of a group do not directly correspond with what we might expect a group to do based on its ideological statements, precisely because material conditions always remain fundamental, and these conditions impose limits on how a group such as Hamas can act. In the case of Hamas, the charter is strident in its tone, but, as explained in my previous post, which you totally ignored, Hamas is actually very pragmatic in its decision-making.

You don't have to accept this view of ideology of course, However, you should at least try to support your assertion that Hamas is comprised of "nutjobs" who make decisions solely on the basis what is consistent with their brand of radical Islamism, with no concern for practical considerations. You will find that I am not the only one who disagrees with you on this point. Devrim and I may disagree entirely on the relationship between Hamas and the class interests of the Palestinian proletariat, but we are at least agreed on some basic facts - if I understand him correctly, Devrim does not agree with the description of Hamas as "fascists" or "nutjobs" and acknowledges that they are clever political actors. Reducing Hamas to a movement driven entirely by ideology is too simplistic, and fails to convey how Hamas actually operates as a movement.


The last refuge of a desperate manThe only way in which I am "desperate" is for answers - from you, and all the other people who continue to deny basic facts. I have consistently shown that Hamas cannot be described as a "nutjob" group by drawing attention to examples of Hamas showing pragmatism, and explaining the ways in which Hamas differs from political parties in other parts of the world, and how this impacts on the movement's decision-making. I also made a detailed critique of the Hamas covenant in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1364619&postcount=49) post, in terms of how much it can tell us about the politics and aims of the movement. In this context, it is frustrating to see so many people make these simplistic throw-away statements without actually looking at the situation in Palestine. If you had done your research properly, you would not describe Hamas in these terms, and you would do a better job of defending your position. Now, as for my question - it was just that, a question. The fact that you have spent time with Muslims is completely irrelevant - you have also made a lot of your participation in protests relating to Palestine, but we all know you have a poor position on the issue, and a lack of knowledge, as shown by the way you describe Hamas.

Oh, and also, who I am, and the university I attend, is irrelevant. Deal with the facts. I also hope you're busy writing that defense of AI you promised us.

[Pogue]

Actually, the views on ideology expressed in my post are entirely consistent with Marxism, because Marxists do not view ideas as floating in space, or falling out of the sky - they are are first and foremost the product of the conditions in which people live, and ideology is used primarily as a tool by different class forces in order to justify a particular course of action or obscure the real aims that lie behind it - for example, the invasion of a developing country such as Iraq might be promoted as an attempt to remove an evil dictator and create a flourishing democracy, even though, in reality, the state does not have these aims in mind at all, but is probably carrying out the invasion to enhance the economic interests of the ruling class and provide a base for further invasions in the future against neighboring countries, such as Iran in the case of Iraq. This would be an example of ideology fulfilling its mystifying function. If we adopt this Marxist view of ideology (which is also my view, obviously, but it is not unique to me) then it also becomes clear that material conditions, such as living under the occupation of an imperialist power, cannot be understood as the result of an ideology imposing itself on the world. Instead, ideology emerges out of these material experiences, even if, once they have emerged, ideas may also influence the way people interact with their conditions and surrounding environments. The anti-semitic components of Hamas can be attributed to the fact that the population of Gaza has been continuously faced with attacks from a state comprised almost solely of Jewish individuals for more than half a century - in the absence of a socialist voice, it is easy to see how this would lead people to assume that Jewish people throughout the world can be held collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli state, and why the supporters of Hamas might view Jewish people as fundamentally evil, even those who are strongly oppossed to Zionism. It is often the case that the actions of a group do not directly correspond with what we might expect a group to do based on its ideological statements, precisely because material conditions always remain fundamental, and these conditions impose limits on how a group such as Hamas can act. In the case of Hamas, the charter is strident in its tone, but, as explained in my previous post, which you totally ignored, Hamas is actually very pragmatic in its decision-making.

You don't have to accept this view of ideology of course, However, you should at least try to support your assertion that Hamas is comprised of "nutjobs" who make decisions solely on the basis what is consistent with their brand of radical Islamism, with no concern for practical considerations. You will find that I am not the only one who disagrees with you on this point. Devrim and I may disagree entirely on the relationship between Hamas and the class interests of the Palestinian proletariat, but we are at least agreed on some basic facts - if I understand him correctly, Devrim does not agree with the description of Hamas as "fascists" or "nutjobs" and acknowledges that they are clever political actors. Reducing Hamas to a movement driven entirely by ideology is too simplistic, and fails to convey how Hamas actually operates as a movement.

The only way in which I am "desperate" is for answers - from you, and all the other people who continue to deny basic facts. I have consistently shown that Hamas cannot be described as a "nutjob" group by drawing attention to examples of Hamas showing pragmatism, and explaining the ways in which Hamas differs from political parties in other parts of the world, and how this impacts on the movement's decision-making. I also made a detailed critique of the Hamas covenant in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1364619&postcount=49) post, in terms of how much it can tell us about the politics and aims of the movement. In this context, it is frustrating to see so many people make these simplistic throw-away statements without actually looking at the situation in Palestine. If you had done your research properly, you would not describe Hamas in these terms, and you would do a better job of defending your position. Now, as for my question - it was just that, a question. The fact that you have spent time with Muslims is completely irrelevant - you have also made a lot of your participation in protests relating to Palestine, but we all know you have a poor position on the issue, and a lack of knowledge, as shown by the way you describe Hamas.

Oh, and also, who I am, and the university I attend, is irrelevant. Deal with the facts. I also hope you're busy writing that defense of AI you promised us.

How can you say your background is irrelevant when you've questioned mine, i.e. by implying I'm Islamaphobic?

And yes, I'm ready for the AI rebuttal, but only if I get an answer to whether or not I'll get a thread in which people try to prove I'm liberal or not. Maybe I could add you to the list by you trying to prove I'm Islamaphobic. I'll deal with my claims when you joke artists deal with yours.

I think your backgorund is entirely relevant. How can we talk about our ideologies and believes without acting on them? I'd forward that your very out of touch because you're in an icnredibly elite organisation which means you'll never have to suffer like the Palestinians do, or even have to get a job like the rest of the proletariat you seem to despise so much (unless of course they're firing rockets into Israel in the name of national liberation or a reacitonary ideology).

Your background is entirely relevant because it shows how hypocritical you are. You question me saying I am am Islamaphobic. My real life completely contradicts that because of all I've done with Muslims. I believe your real life is entirely relevant because I believe your the prime example of some holier than thou intellectual who uses Marxism as a little game they be to unique from the comfort of their cushy place at university which is paid for by their rich parents, all with the aim of graduating and going into a high paid job somewhere. Basically, I doubt you credibility and sincerity.

[Pogue]

So oncemore, is anyone willing to respond to my defense of AI with a defense of their accusaiton that I am one of the following or all of them:

a) Liberal

b) Sexist

c) Orientalist

d) Islamaphobic

[BobKKKindle$]

I honestly don't care if you see me as a bourgeois intellectual who isn't sincere in what he believes. You're free to make assertions about who I am, and what I stand for. However, I want you to explain why you think we should describe Hamas as a "nutjob" movement comprised of "****s", given the evidence against this simplistic characterization. If you don't respond, and persist in accusing people of being confused and demanding that they prove things which have been directed against you, then we can only assume that you don't know how to defend your arguments, because you have a superficial understanding of the issue. You obviously think highly of yourself if you think that anyone is going to spend their time explaining why they feel you should be seen as a liberal or as a member of any of the other political categories mentioned in your previous post - but this forum is about politics, so defend your political arguments, as requested, or accept that you're wrong.

[Coggeh]

I honestly don't care if you see me as a bourgeois intellectual who isn't sincere in what he believes. You're free to make assertions about who I am, and what I stand for. However, I want you to explain why you think we should describe Hamas as a "nutjob" movement comprised of "****s", given the evidence against this simplistic characterization. If you don't respo of yourself if you think that anyone is going to spend their time explaining why they feel you should be seen as a liberal or as a member of any of the other political categories mentioned in your previous post - but this forum nd, and persist in accusing people of being confused and demanding that they prove things which have been directed against you, then we can only assume that you don't know how to defend your arguments, because you have a superficial understanding of the issue. You obviously think highlyis about politics, so defend your political arguments, as requested, or accept that you're wrong.
I think it would be easier for you to see the people on the other side of the argument as "bourgeois intellectuals" lol .

That said I agree with H L V S though I wouldn't really see Hamas as "****s" per se . We must however analyse the situation in Palestine and the characteristics of Hamas. Their struggle although justified is not socialist.Support of Hamas by socialists is is completly wrong ,their struggle seeks to divide palestinian and israeli workers , their movement alienates the power of working class unity and their actions are completly counter productive to that cause of the working class .I don't see how socialists could support hamas .

[Pogue]

I honestly don't care if you see me as a bourgeois intellectual who isn't sincere in what he believes. You're free to make assertions about who I am, and what I stand for. However, I want you to explain why you think we should describe Hamas as a "nutjob" movement comprised of "****s", given the evidence against this simplistic characterization. If you don't respond, and persist in accusing people of being confused and demanding that they prove things which have been directed against you, then we can only assume that you don't know how to defend your arguments, because you have a superficial understanding of the issue. You obviously think highly of yourself if you think that anyone is going to spend their time explaining why they feel you should be seen as a liberal or as a member of any of the other political categories mentioned in your previous post - but this forum is about politics, so defend your political arguments, as requested, or accept that you're wrong.

(Emphasis mine) Its more that I know this but nevermind.

I describe Hamas are nutjob and ****s because they've attacked striking workers, they're anti-semetic, homophobic and believe in the political ideology of Islamism. Thats not an attack on Muslims, although I believe all religions are stupi, counter-productive and irrational generally, I don't believe this makes the people who follow them so in all aspects of their life. But Hamas have an political ideology which makes no sense, believes in Jews being some grand conspiring enemy of the world, etc.

They seek to divide the international proletariat and oppress it through their ideology which is consevrative in nature and at the very least, not socialist.

[BobKKKindle$]

I describe Hamas are nutjob and ****s because they've attacked striking workers, they're anti-semetic, homophobic and believe in the political ideology of Islamism.The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The fact that Hamas has attacked striking workers does not prove that they are "nutjobs", because the term "nutjob" infers that the movement is entirely irrational in the way it behaves, with no clear set of objectives or principles. This behavior should be attributed to the social composition of the leadership - Hamas is led by individuals who do not have the same class interests as the movement's support base or the Palestinian working class because they are mainly from a petty-bourgeois background, in common with other Islamist movements throughout the Middle East, and from this perspective it is entirely rational that the leaders would organize the repression of strikes, and call for unity between classes, because allowing strikes to take place would pose a challenge to the political dominance of the Palestinian petty-bourgeoisie and potentially allow for a socialist party to draw support away from Hamas, if such a party existed. So, you've failed in your task to prove that Hamas are "nutjobs", not only because you didn't respond to my explanation of how Hamas has acted pragmatically, but also because you've ignored the role of classes forces in shaping decision-making, especially with regard to strikes. You've also simplified the issue yet again by neglecting to distinguish between different layers of Hamas - the leadership is fundamentally different from the lower levels of the movement. As for the issues of anti-semitism and homophobia, large numbers of proletarians throughout the world hold regressive attitudes on the status of minority groups such as homosexuals and ethnic minorities, and so if we accept the premise that whoever holds these ideas must be a "nutjob", then we would have to conclude that the vast majority of workers would fall within this same category.

[Pogue]

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The fact that Hamas has attacked striking workers does not prove that they are "nutjobs", because the term "nutjob" infers that the movement is entirely irrational in the way it behaves, with no clear set of objectives or principles. This behavior should be attributed to the social composition of the leadership - Hamas is led by individuals who do not have the same class interests as the movement's support base or the Palestinian working class because they are mainly from a petty-bourgeois background, in common with other Islamist movements throughout the Middle East, and from this perspective it is entirely rational that the leaders would organize the repression of strikes, and call for unity between classes, because allowing strikes to take place would pose a challenge to the political dominance of the Palestinian petty-bourgeoisie and potentially allow for a socialist party to draw support away from Hamas, if such a party existed. So, you've failed in your task to prove that Hamas are "nutjobs", not only because you didn't respond to my explanation of how Hamas has acted pragmatically, but also because you've ignored the role of classes forces in shaping decision-making, especially with regard to strikes. You've also simplified the issue yet again by neglecting to distinguish between different layers of Hamas - the leadership is fundamentally different from the lower levels of the movement. As for the issues of anti-semitism and homophobia, large numbers of proletarians throughout the world hold regressive attitudes on the status of minority groups such as homosexuals and ethnic minorities, and so if we accept the premise that whoever holds these ideas must be a "nutjob", then we would have to conclude that the vast majority of workers would fall within this same category.

Heres evidence of what I mean. You've been socialised in elitist intellectual circles which worship such pedenatic unpacking of a simple word I used to describe people with some strange and anti-worker beliefs. You're so out of touch its unbelievable. You actually wrote about ten lines on my choice of words.

I can imagine you being the sort of person who, upon hearing a worker say "The BNP are a bunch of ****s", rather than being pleased to see working class anti-fascism, would reprimand the worker for being so sexist, or maybe ask them what a **** is, the origins of the word, and its contemporary usage and application to patriarchal social relations, in that language.

Of course I highly doubt you'd mingle with the unwashed masses anyway, and I doubt many of them wander into campus.

[Sam_b]

So H-L-V-S, fancy responding to my post any time soon?

[Saorsa]

H-L-V-S, it only makes your own "arguments" look even worse than they already did when you respond to BK's posts with nothing but personal attacks on his class background. The majority of great revolutionary leaders both Marxist and anarchist came from bourgeois and petit-bourgeois backgrounds, it's irrelevant.

Nikita Khrushchev: The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class.

Zhou Enlai: True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class.

[Pogue]

So H-L-V-S, fancy responding to my post any time soon?

On the AI question? If you open a thread for a formal debate on it I will.

[Pogue]

H-L-V-S, it only makes your own "arguments" look even worse than they already did when you respond to BK's posts with nothing but personal attacks on his class background. The majority of great revolutionary leaders both Marxist and anarchist came from bourgeois and petit-bourgeois backgrounds, it's irrelevant.

Nikita Khrushchev: The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class.

Zhou Enlai: True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class.

Sure, I just doubt the credibility of yet another student leftist who talks about the hardships of the working class while simultaneously being part of an incredibly elitist bourgeois ruling class institution with the purpose of qualifying to go into some well paid job so he can forget class struggle.

If Bobkindles was from a petit-bourgeois background but was the sort to be heavily engaged in appealing to the workers, mixing with them, understanding their struggles, standing on their pickets, etc, maybe I'd have more respect for him. However I think his attitude show on this forum is very representative of his background, and the two combined give me a picture of the most abhorent of 'socialist' types, the university intellectual who views Marxism as a game, an act of intellectual masturbation in which he can use big long words and criticise everyone else as being Oh So Ignorant for having orientalist, sexist, islamaphobic views whilst not realising his own arogance. Its despicable and so very cliched.

I have very little time for Red Brick socialists, they don't last long, look at the May 68 generation, most of those students went on to become the priviliged strands of society, including your man Danny the Red. My analysis has been called simultanesouly liberal and workerist. I'd venture that Bobkindles is elitist and arogant and detached from reality as a result of his shielded and priviliged lifestyle.

Lets get this Amnesty International debate going shall we? Could be good, perhaps I'll learn something. If you enlighten me I will be more than happy to concede the point and admit defeat.

[Pogue]

Oh and I also still ask - will anyone try to prove I'm a liberal in response?

I count the number of times Comrade Alistair has accused me off it at about 4 times now, BK 2, and a few other people 3. I think that one'd be fun. Thats my terms. Either I get the debate or you take it back, pretty much same terms as the AI debate actually.

[Sam_b]

On the AI question? If you open a thread for a formal debate on it I will.


So, do you think that:
@ the Jerusalem Post and BBC are valid and unbiased sources?
@ do you condemn the ANC because of its targeting of civilians? If not, why not, and why do you try and fob off the question by claiming to know little about the ANC, when you've been shown to know little about Hamas, and why are you so quick to condemn Hamas but not the ANC in particular?
@ Who within Hamas carries out suicide bombings?

On these questions. I trust you read them?

[Sam_b]

count the number of times Comrade Alistair has accused me off it at about 4 times now, BK 2, and a few other people 3. I think that one'd be fun. Thats my terms. Either I get the debate or you take it back, pretty much same terms as the AI debate actually.

Why are you getting so wound up about this? You've tried to have a formal debate on this before, and have got knocked back (rightly so, in my opinion, seeing as you are more than capable of dishing it out to others, including BobKindles, without any real 'reasoning' either)

[Pogue]

Why are you getting so wound up about this? You've tried to have a formal debate on this before, and have got knocked back (rightly so, in my opinion, seeing as you are more than capable of dishing it out to others, including BobKindles, without any real 'reasoning' either)

I find it ironic that I'm the one getting wound up when I have about 3 different users desperately trying to score intellectual points against me.

[Sam_b]

They'll win if you don't start answering questions posted a while ago, that youve so far failed to answer.

So, do you think that:
@ the Jerusalem Post and BBC are valid and unbiased sources?
@ do you condemn the ANC because of its targeting of civilians? If not, why not, and why do you try and fob off the question by claiming to know little about the ANC, when you've been shown to know little about Hamas, and why are you so quick to condemn Hamas but not the ANC in particular?
@ Who within Hamas carries out suicide bombings?

[manic expression]

Oh and I also still ask - will anyone try to prove I'm a liberal in response?

Much of that will hinge on your defense of AI.


Heres evidence of what I mean. You've been socialised in elitist intellectual circles which worship such pedenatic unpacking of a simple word I used to describe people with some strange and anti-worker beliefs. You're so out of touch its unbelievable.
Sure, I just doubt the credibility of yet another student leftist who talks about the hardships of the working class while simultaneously being part of an incredibly elitist bourgeois ruling class institution with the purpose of qualifying to go into some well paid job so he can forget class struggle.Getting a formal education doesn't automatically make you capitalist or bourgeois or anything of the sort. I'm quite critical of academia, but the claims you've made are pretty misled. In all honesty, the idea that revolutionaries cannot be educated beyond high/secondary school doesn't make much sense.

A few other points to bear in mind: No one can truly "forget" class struggle, every aspect of every life is built around it, no matter what class a person happens to belong to. In addition, you are trying to equate well-paying jobs with anti-socialism, which just isn't true. Plenty of professionals have proven to be revolutionaries in many instances: there is nothing stopping a professor, a doctor or a lawyer from being a socialist. In fact, there is nothing stopping a shop-owner from being a revolutionary socialist, either.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think I even have to bother explaining that not all of what you call "calls for national defense" use that rhetoric honestly. I don't feel like dissecting all your examples, but just briefly it's not exactly the case that the Soviet Union had been occupying Germany since 1880 and carrying out indiscriminate violence against German civilians while moving Russians into German territory to increase their control over it, for instance.
whether they use it "honestly" or not is not the issue here, it does not concern me a bit if the rhetoric of bosses is frank or is it verbal gymnastics. not all the actions of the bourgeosie that seem "noble" are a huge conspiracy against the international working class, and to think this is quite simplistic.

regardless of the differences of this situations that apparently are really important to you, in all these situations much more people died under the indiscrimate violence of the opposing gang than in palestine. however, you dont see leftists accepting these historical calls for defense because the conclusion has already been given by stalinists and therefore it makes no sense to analyze them. you also dont see western leftists talking about taking sides between the awful gangs in african countries, where the situation is probably much more horrible than in palestine. in the latter, joining one gang or the other is probably a question of having your daughters raped or being killed or not. the only "argument" you are putting forward here is that national liberation by itself might be more "noble" than the more deliberate madness of african gangs. however, that does not concern me because i am a materialist, not some secular idealist.










I guess there's a reason why the slippery slope is considered a logical fallacy. But since I know that this is your favorite example to caricature people who support national liberation efforts, let me save you a bit of worrying. I think that if your friends and family decided to resist this potential invasion from the United States by joining the Mexican army or by forming their own groups, it would be a legitimate decision. And of course from here I would campaign and organize against the war so that they wouldn't have to be in that situation for long.

the issue here is that it would not be "optional", no matter how enthusiastically nationalistic the mexican population might be, nobody will be able to refuse military service. Some might give their lives wholeheartedly to the that noble call of national defense, but the few more level headed people that might want to reject that call would be forced in.







I'll leave telling people halfway across the world what to do to the communist left. My job as a citizen of the country that's propping up the Israeli occupation is to organize against my own state

Th is the job of every communist.


Tu quoque is another logical fallacy, but in any case as I already said I support the legitimate resistance of Palestinians against Israeli occupation and apartheid through whatever means they see fit.

This however is not.

[Coggeh]

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The fact that Hamas has attacked striking workers does not prove that they are "nutjobs", because the term "nutjob" infers that the movement is entirely irrational in the way it behaves, with no clear set of objectives or principles. This behavior should be attributed to the social composition of the leadership - Hamas is led by individuals who do not have the same class interests as the movement's support base or the Palestinian working class because they are mainly from a petty-bourgeois background, in common with other Islamist movements throughout the Middle East, and from this perspective it is entirely rational that the leaders would organize the repression of strikes, and call for unity between classes, because allowing strikes to take place would pose a challenge to the political dominance of the Palestinian petty-bourgeoisie and potentially allow for a socialist party to draw support away from Hamas, if such a party existed. So, you've failed in your task to prove that Hamas are "nutjobs", not only because you didn't respond to my explanation of how Hamas has acted pragmatically, but also because you've ignored the role of classes forces in shaping decision-making, especially with regard to strikes. You've also simplified the issue yet again by neglecting to distinguish between different layers of Hamas - the leadership is fundamentally different from the lower levels of the movement. As for the issues of anti-semitism and homophobia, large numbers of proletarians throughout the world hold regressive attitudes on the status of minority groups such as homosexuals and ethnic minorities, and so if we accept the premise that whoever holds these ideas must be a "nutjob", then we would have to conclude that the vast majority of workers would fall within this same category.
Even though your post here is basically summing up the counter revolutionary characteristic of Hamas you still support them . That... makes .. sense.

[Yehuda Stern]

What you don't get here, what you refuse to understand, is that Bolshevik support to oppressed nations does not depend at all on the question of whether or not their leadership is reactionary. Now, I know the SWP supports Hamas politically - however, Bob here has not written anything supporting them, and I doubt that he does anyway. So please debate with the positions presented and not with the "you support reactionaries" straw man that 'neutralists' love so much.

[Pogue]

What you don't get here, what you refuse to understand, is that Bolshevik support to oppressed nations does not depend at all on the question of whether or not their leadership is reactionary. Now, I know the SWP supports Hamas politically - however, Bob here has not written anything supporting them, and I doubt that he does anyway. So please debate with the positions presented and not with the "you support reactionaries" straw man that 'neutralists' love so much.

Its not about being neutral, its about supporting the working class. I don't feel the need to pick sides in a fight between two bourgeois reactionary organisations.

[Sam_b]

Well condemn the ANC for being 'reactionary' then.

We're waiting.

[Yehuda Stern]

I am also waiting for you to respond to wait I said in response to this immature response last time. I already answered this argument, and using it again doesn't make it any more correct (if anything, it makes it doubly false, as it is clear that you cannot defend it).

[Coggeh]

Give it up lads , ffs.:glare:

[Sam_b]

I don't think its being pedantic, Coggy. Several days ago I asked several important questions of H-L-V-S, and has so far not responded. I think this shows H-L-V-S's failings to hold a rational argument rather than my so-called 'pedantry'.

[Pogue]

I don't understand your questions or their relevancy. Who within Hamas carries out the bombings? Am I meant to know names? Its well documented that they carried out the bombings, look it up.

Suicide attacks against civilians are never justifiable as a tactic.

Yes, of course they are biased, So is the SWP. Its obvious Hamas are reactionary and no one is denying that. So its irrelevant.

[Sam_b]

It is very relevant. By blanketly targeting your bile at Hamas you have to recongise that you are tarring thousands upon thousands of Palestinians conducting their resistance through this. You have failed to make any distinction. I'm not looking for names, but since you obviously believe that the leadership and the rank-and-file are on in the same you are unable to comment on which sections of Hamas are responsibl for suicide bombings. This shows that you know precious little about the organisation of Hamas.

Despite this, you are more than happy to trot off condemnations here, there and everywhere; yet you are suspiciously silent about similar tactics used by other organisations. You're copping out of condemning the ANC for good reason, and shows up your politics to be hypocritical.

To justify your stance you use articles which source dubious 'evidence' from the BBC and the Jerusalem Post. Do you consider them reliable sources?

Now, if you won't mind, my list of questions is still up there, and would very much like an answer. Or are you just going to cop out again?

[Pogue]

It is very relevant. By blanketly targeting your bile at Hamas you have to recongise that you are tarring thousands upon thousands of Palestinians conducting their resistance through this. You have failed to make any distinction. I'm not looking for names, but since you obviously believe that the leadership and the rank-and-file are on in the same you are unable to comment on which sections of Hamas are responsibl for suicide bombings. This shows that you know precious little about the organisation of Hamas.

Despite this, you are more than happy to trot off condemnations here, there and everywhere; yet you are suspiciously silent about similar tactics used by other organisations. You're copping out of condemning the ANC for good reason, and shows up your politics to be hypocritical.

To justify your stance you use articles which source dubious 'evidence' from the BBC and the Jerusalem Post. Do you consider them reliable sources?

Now, if you won't mind, my list of questions is still up there, and would very much like an answer. Or are you just going to cop out again?

Cop out the same way countless people have copped out of proving I'm a liberal?

I disagree with the tactics of the ANC in regards to their bombing. I would condemn that, and I'd condemn how they now form part of a bourgoies state that hasn't made significant efforts to do away with poverty. I would however say I supported (as much as I can now as its already happened) the movement for freedom for black people in South Africa, but as with all of us, we support the elimination of racism alongside the elimination of capitalism. So no, I don't suppor the ANC. They're social-democrats and some of their tactics were not right. But I do support black people being equal to white people.

I don't agree with Hamas's ideology, or their tactics. I'd see them as more contemptable because they have a racist ideology too. So I see Hamas as worse.

Stop with all this 'You tarnish the resistance etc..." People hold beliefs which we'd rather they didn't. I'd rather the Palestinian people didn't use Hamas as their organisation to resist within, because Hamas will stab them in the back. Oncemore, I support the working class, not any bourgeois organisation. My idea of resistance would be organising Palestinians and Israelis along class lines, not supporting reactionaries when they shoot rockets into Israel.

You have an idealised form of the 'resistance'. Quite simply, you fetishise it.

[bretty]

While I think AI does a lot of good work, its liberalist blindness to its own ideology cannot be denied. On their website they claim:
We have a number of safeguards in place to protect our autonomy. We are [..] independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/about-amnesty-international
To say that you're "independent of any political ideology" is really the ultimate denial of politics. They talk as if the whole human rights discourse had nothing to do with politics, and was free of seeing the world in any particular way. To interpret the world and to have values (e.g. respect for human rights) is already a political act, as is any denial of human rights (or any intermediate position) as well.

It's the same when you say that you're "not taking sides" -- in a massive conflict where people do take sides that means you're siding with whoever is winning. To that extent they are (also) apologists for imperialism and all that comes with it. Paul de Rooij, whose writings were already linked to, is completely right on Amnesty International.

Re Comrade Alastair's claim that "There is no such thing as human rights and revolutionaries do not think in or use such ridiculous notions", i disagree. I mean, I agree that people are certainly not born with a bunch of rights in the UN declaration way, that they "have" rights or some such idealist formulation.

But I believe Comrade Alastair commits an ultraleft error by dismissing the politics of human rights like this. In my view, besides naturally being so much idealistic nonsense, human rights can also make meaningful politics, as people might start believing that they "have" these and these rights, and thus encouraged to organise and fight for these rights. In the process of fighting for their rights (that they supposedly "have") they come to realise those very rights.

I believe that people in general are much less confused about the liberal-philosophical side of "human rights" than Comrade Alastair's dismissal suggests. If I say to a person, "do you believe you have the right to be fed, the right to a dwelling, the right to be in good health", they don't think in terms of the UN declaration formulations, but instead say "you bet I do", and they're completely right.

People's struggle for their well-being and against oppression doesn't need to take on the guise of "human rights", but it is possible that it does. And if it does, I see nothing wrong with it. On the contrary, I would think it harmful if someone tried to persuade people that they have to absorb some other ideology first before they can start fighting for their rights "properly".

I think I'd agree with this. AI does decent work, but suggesting they are free from politics in some way is simply denial. However I don't think that just because you claim to not take sides means you side with the winner. I don't think that is the case with this conflict at all.

[Cumannach]

Stop with all this 'You tarnish the resistance etc..." People hold beliefs which we'd rather they didn't. I'd rather the Palestinian people didn't use Hamas as their organisation to resist within, because Hamas will stab them in the back. Oncemore, I support the working class, not any bourgeois organisation. My idea of resistance would be organising Palestinians and Israelis along class lines, not supporting reactionaries when they shoot rockets into Israel.

You have an idealised form of the 'resistance'. Quite simply, you fetishise it.

But you keep getting away from the matter at hand. 'Organising along class lines' takes years. If it was easy to build working class mass movements capitalism would be ancient history. Right now there is not the slightest hope of the Palestinian and Israeli working class collectively putting an end to Israeli imperialism. To believe there is, is fantasy, and to believe a movement can be instantly conjured out of wishful phrases about the working class is pure idealism.

And to pre-empt your response, this doesn't mean to stop socialist class struggle in deference to co-operation with nationalist resistance forces. There's no contradiction between the two in these specific material conditions and humans are actually capable of multi-tasking would you believe.

[benhur]

Do you think there would be any suicide bombers if the IDF and Israel hadn't carried out genocidal acts against the Palestinians from Israel's very formation. It takes a very real and very brutal form of helplessness and oppression to make someone strap bombs to themselves and to blow themselves up.

Islamic terrorists exist in places where there's no oppression, so your points are not valid. Their job is to establish a theocracy, and they'll do away with anyone that comes in the way, including you, Sam B. They'll use you, as they did in Iran, and once their 'oppressors' are defeated, they'll train their guns on you.

Bottom line, let's protect Muslims and convince them that socialism is their future, but let's not go easy on Islamic militants, whoever they are, wherever they are. Their 'just cause' for militancy is just an excuse to establish theocracy, nothing more. If not Israel, they'll have some other excuse to spill blood, they're right-wing essentially, and must therefore be treated as a threat to socialism. No compromises. Give aid and help directly to Palestinians, arm their workers to fight for their rights and freedoms, but get rid of the equation hamas=Palestine. This is an insult to the decent Palestinian people.

[Yehuda Stern]

Cut the nonsense, benhur. Your racism is becoming more and more open each time you post. The truth is, there are no non-oppressed muslims the world over. All Muslim countries are oppressed nations, kept down by imperialism. Muslims in imperialist countries make up the poorest sections of society, doubly oppressed both as workers and as Muslims, subject to a racist campaign the kind of which humanity has not seem since the anti-Semitism which dominated bourgeois society before WWII, a racist campaign of which 'socialists' like yourself are an integral part - you are simply the 'left' flank of it.

Palestinians don't want your condescending compliments or aid. They want to return to themselves their homeland, and they will never stop fighting for that, nor should they. In fact, your line that support to the Palestinian resistance is a betrayal of a class line is made a mockery of by your advocacy of "protecting" and "convincing" Muslims, as if all the Islamic peoples of the earth are one classless mass that petty-bourgeois liberals like yourself must sacrifice their noble selves to help.

Let's have a count down up to this point: you're anti-worker, because you essentially believe workers are stupid people easily manipulated by fascists and capitalists alike. You are a male chauvinist, who believes it's fine to fawn over pictures of Israeli female soldiers and joke that "you wouldn't want to hurt them" while the Israeli army slaughters Palestinians. You are now also being exposed as an anti-Muslim and anti-Arab racist. Tell me something, benhur - this community is called "RevLeft." The hell are you doing here?

[Pogue]

Cut the nonsense, benhur. Your racism is becoming more and more open each time you post. The truth is, there are no non-oppressed muslims the world over. All Muslim countries are oppressed nations, kept down by imperialism. Muslims in imperialist countries make up the poorest sections of society, doubly oppressed both as workers and as Muslims, subject to a racist campaign the kind of which humanity has not seem since the anti-Semitism which dominated bourgeois society before WWII, a racist campaign of which 'socialists' like yourself are an integral part - you are simply the 'left' flank of it.

Palestinians don't want your condescending compliments or aid. They want to return to themselves their homeland, and they will never stop fighting for that, nor should they. In fact, your line that support to the Palestinian resistance is a betrayal of a class line is made a mockery of by your advocacy of "protecting" and "convincing" Muslims, as if all the Islamic peoples of the earth are one classless mass that petty-bourgeois liberals like yourself must sacrifice their noble selves to help.

Let's have a count down up to this point: you're anti-worker, because you essentially believe workers are stupid people easily manipulated by fascists and capitalists alike. You are a male chauvinist, who believes it's fine to fawn over pictures of Israeli female soldiers and joke that "you wouldn't want to hurt them" while the Israeli army slaughters Palestinians. You are now also being exposed as an anti-Muslim and anti-Arab racist. Tell me something, benhur - this community is called "RevLeft." The hell are you doing here?

Whoah.

[GX.]

There's also the issue of reducing political Islam to a nefarious plot to establish theocracies the world over. It's a threat to civilization and democracy etc. That point of view is invariably tinged with cultural chauvinism.

[black magick hustla]

There's also the issue of reducing political Islam to a nefarious plot to establish theocracies the world over. It's a threat to civilization and democracy etc. That point of view is invariably tinged with cultural chauvinism.

i dont know about this but i believe political islam is an utterly reactionary current that must be opposed intransigently by every communist worth their salt. political islam consolidated itself after crushing working class militants in places like iran. communists that get murdered habitually by islamists are not concerned by the white guilt complex of western leftists. once upon a time, islam represented a positive force in history that came with wonderful scientists and some novel approaches to gender roles. Today, however, political islam is one of the most reactionary political tendencies in the third world.

[black magick hustla]

there are no non-oppressed muslims the world over.

stern this is liberal garbage, cmon you are generally more politically sober than this. the "integrist" merchant (as my family in algeria calls the fundamentalists) that my young cousin is being forced to marry to because of his money is not "opressed". nor are the high ranking clergy that puppeteer most of the affairs in Iran. This statement is utterly devoid of substance.

[BobKKKindle$]

benhur, there's no point in me repeating what Yehuda has already said, because he's completely right. However, when you and others make comments like that it really makes me aware of the extent to which orientalist attitudes really are an integral and enduring feature not just of culture in the past, during the epoch of colonialism, but also of contemporary political views, even amongst those who see themselves as being in some way progressive or radical. The idea of a noble westerner traveling to the orient or spreading his message in order to liberate the orient from its superstitions and irrationalities is a constant theme of orientalist texts and the contemporary presentation of the Middle East in the media, and it's evident from all of your comments that you see Palestinians as essentially helpless beings who need your intervention to see the light, which, given your opposition to all anti-imperialist struggles, and your naive pacifism, would mean accepting Israeli oppression as a fact of life and something that can't be altered. Thankfully, nobody is ever going to listen to someone like you, because you have no knowledge of the situation in Palestine, and nothing to offer the people who suffer at the hands of Israel. Palestinians don't need any help in the form of meaningless and naive advice from people living in imperialist states. The only acceptable position for someone who lives in a state that is complicit in the oppression of the Palestinians or any other exploited nation is to give unconditional support to all struggles against this oppression regardless of whether such struggles are being led by reactionary or progressive organizations, but you're unwilling to do this, just like the rest of your liberal friends, because you fail to understand what imperialism is, and the impact that it has on people living in nations subject to imperialist oppression, and that means you have no right to consider yourself a member of any revolutionary movement.

[Random Precision]

i dont mean to patronize you this is the way i speak around friends! even older people than me. i am sorry if it offended you.

I wasn't offended, I just thought it was kind of odd.


whether they use it "honestly" or not is not the issue here, it does not concern me a bit if the rhetoric of bosses is frank or is it verbal gymnastics. not all the actions of the bourgeosie that seem "noble" are a huge conspiracy against the international working class, and to think this is quite simplistic.

regardless of the differences of this situations that apparently are really important to you, in all these situations much more people died under the indiscrimate violence of the opposing gang than in palestine. however, you dont see leftists accepting these historical calls for defense because the conclusion has already been given by stalinists and therefore it makes no sense to analyze them.

What you are really saying here is that there is no practical difference between an inter-imperialist conflict like the Second World War and the conflict in Palestine right now. This, of course, makes you a complete liar when you claim to be a materialist.


you also dont see western leftists talking about taking sides between the awful gangs in african countries, where the situation is probably much more horrible than in palestine. in the latter, joining one gang or the other is probably a question of having your daughters raped or being killed or not. the only "argument" you are putting forward here is that national liberation by itself might be more "noble" than the more deliberate madness of african gangs. however, that does not concern me because i am a materialist, not some secular idealist.

"Awful gangs in African countries" are neither here nor there. Once again you prove yourself to be an idealist by equating an imperialist world war with a national liberation struggle with warlords fighting each other in impoverished nations. It's much closer to a liberal pacifist stance than any kind of Marxism.


Th is the job of every communist.

This however is not.

How can you support the struggle against the American state within its borders if you don't support it abroad?

[bretty]

stern this is liberal garbage, cmon you are generally more politically sober than this. the "integrist" merchant (as my family in algeria calls the fundamentalists) that my young cousin is being forced to marry to because of his money is not "opressed". nor are the high ranking clergy that puppeteer most of the affairs in Iran. This statement is utterly devoid of substance.

Agreed. There are plenty of muslims who in context to where they live are not considered oppressed. However like any other ethnic or cultural group there is a vast majority that are. But generalizations help nobody.

[Yehuda Stern]

It is of course absolute nonsense to say that there are non-oppressed Muslims. Certainly there are Muslim and Arab capitalists and landlords, however, they too are nationally oppressed by imperialism. Of course, they are reactionary because they have developed an interest in imperialism, and therefore are incapable of fighting it - this is the theory of permanent revolution, or rather, one aspect of it, in a nutshell. That left communists don't recognize that imperialism exists doesn't change that fact anymore than the fact that some fundamentalist Christians still believe the earth is flat change the fact that it is (to a rather good approximation) round.

EDIT: Never mind the fact that, of course, there's nothing liberal about the correct argument that all Muslims or oppressed. White guilt is something thrown around by LCs, ringing the racism of the Republican right in America, to delegitimize anti-imperialist ideologies. However, most liberals, just like LCs and Anarchists, would agree that there's no imperialism and that in wars, one should condemn third world countries as much as first world ones. So, it should be clear to everyone who is really closest to being a liberal here.

[benhur]

Cut the nonsense, benhur. Your racism is becoming more and more open each time you post. The truth is, there are no non-oppressed muslims the world over. All Muslim countries are oppressed nations, kept down by imperialism. Muslims in imperialist countries make up the poorest sections of society, doubly oppressed both as workers and as Muslims, subject to a racist campaign the kind of which humanity has not seem since the anti-Semitism which dominated bourgeois society before WWII, a racist campaign of which 'socialists' like yourself are an integral part - you are simply the 'left' flank of it.

Oil rich countries come to mind. They're not oppressed. So your point is baseless. So is your point about racism, cuz I am brown as a potato. You, on the other hand, seem to be the most racist (okay, bobkindles tops you), because you've already assumed that brownies are so backward that they're stuck with the likes of hamas and are not capable of a real socialist revolution. This is the respect (or the lack) you have for little brown people, whether Muslim or otherwise.


Palestinians don't want your condescending compliments or aid. They want to return to themselves their homeland, and they will never stop fighting for that, nor should they.

Different methods must be followed under different circumstances. In cases where fighting causes more harm than good (as in the case of Palestine), non-violence would be a better option. If you disagree, do so politely. You don't have to attack me for being a non-violent man.


Let's have a count down up to this point: you're anti-worker, because you essentially believe workers are stupid people easily manipulated by fascists and capitalists alike. You are a male chauvinist, who believes it's fine to fawn over pictures of Israeli female soldiers and joke that "you wouldn't want to hurt them" while the Israeli army slaughters Palestinians. You are now also being exposed as an anti-Muslim and anti-Arab racist. Tell me something, benhur - this community is called "RevLeft." The hell are you doing here?

*I am not anti-worker, I simply expressed fears that disillusioned and desperate workers could be easily manipulated by crafty politicians. See how many people even here on revleft were fooled into thinking that Obama was on their side.:lol:

*You say I am chauvinist, because I admire women?:confused: I give up, I just can't argue with this one.

*I am not racist (you are, obviously), I hate religion especially when it becomes political as in the case of radical, militant Islam followed by the likes of hamas. If that makes one racist, then everybody on revleft is racist, because they oppose the influence of militant Christianity , I presume?:rolleyes:

[Yehuda Stern]

Oil rich countries come to mind. They're not oppressed. So your point is baseless.

An incredibly stupid thing to say. Of course, if anything, oil rich countries are more oppressed and exploited by imperialism.


So is your point about racism, cuz I am brown as a potato.

I don't care; it's irrelevant. You can be any color in the west and still be racist towards the East, as we can clearly see in this thread.


You, on the other hand, seem to be the most racist (okay, bobkindles tops you), because you've already assumed that brownies are so backward that they're stuck with the likes of hamas and are not capable of a real socialist revolution.

I've actually never said this anywhere, and have often said the contrary, so this is yet another cheap shot from the master of stupid demagogic arguments.


You say I am chauvinist, because I admire women?

Reminds me of a quote from a movie which describes people like you very well: "How did I fail Woman Studies? I love *****es!"

At any rate, I'm not going to debate with you whether or not you are a racist, anti-worker or a chauvinist. I've already done so quite successfully in three different threads, as evinced by the constantly lowering quality of arguments you manage to put out. If you care, you are welcome to listen to what I and Bob had to say to you, realize you are a condescending orientalist racist, and change your ways. Maybe that could even make you less hostile to workers when you realize you're just not that much better than everyone. Maybe.

[black magick hustla]

It is of course absolute nonsense to say that there are non-oppressed Muslims. Certainly there are Muslim and Arab capitalists and landlords, however, they too are nationally oppressed by imperialism. Of course, they are reactionary because they have developed an interest in imperialism, and therefore are incapable of fighting it - this is the theory of permanent revolution, or rather, one aspect of it, in a nutshell. That left communists don't recognize that imperialism exists doesn't change that fact anymore than the fact that some fundamentalist Christians still believe the earth is flat change the fact that it is (to a rather good approximation) round.
Actually, there are quite a few landlords and capitalists that are willing to fight american or israeli imperialism. They are the people who funded national liberation movements and they are the people right now ruling places like iran. There are different "imperialist blocs" so to speak that grapple for domination - some of them of course weaker than the others. Where do you think that stupid theory of "comprador and national bourgeosie" and of "new democracy" came from?

The whole "oppressed" nonsense is similar to how some folks portray hilary clinton as oppressed because she is a woman. that is utter nonsense and an abuse of a powerful word and a rejection of clarity in positions in favor of dumb theoretical jabberwacky and rhetorical hocus pocus. To say people who live on the backs of others and in utter confort and almost complete freedom of doing whatever they want is "opressed" is frankly stupid.


EDIT: Never mind the fact that, of course, there's nothing liberal about the correct argument that all Muslims or oppressed. White guilt is something thrown around by LCs, ringing the racism of the Republican right in America, to delegitimize anti-imperialist ideologies. However, most liberals, just like LCs and Anarchists, would agree that there's no imperialism and that in wars, one should condemn third world countries as much as first world ones. So, it should be clear to everyone who is really closest to being a liberal here.First, I don't think anybody else except myself in this forums throws around that term.

Second, we dont agree there is no imperialism. We think imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. We however, do not think reactionary islamist gangs can bring it down.

Third, it is rich you call me a racist. The only way you can call me "racist" is by implying i am some sort of arab uncle-tom because most of my family is arab and muslim. Which is utterly ridiculous and low. What next, I am a race traitor?:rolleyes:

Finally, you are a liberal because you reject class analysis in favor of really muddy concepts of "oppression" where the motherfucking king of jordan can be "opressed" to. How can that not be utterly ridiculous and a rejection of common sense?

[Cumannach]

It's a fairly basic principle of Imperialism that Imperialist nations prop up friendly governments in the countries they wish to exploit.

[Yehuda Stern]

Where do you think that stupid theory of "comprador and national bourgeosie" and of "new democracy" came from?

It came from people who, like yourself, believe that the bourgeoisie can fight imperialism. See, once again you show how ultra-lefts share in essence the beliefs of the opportunists. Now, of course the bourgeoisie can find itself in some military conflict in some situations. However, it cannot fight imperialism collectively, as it manifests itself in the collective exploitation of the third world by imperialism.


The whole "oppressed" nonsense is similar to how some folks portray hilary clinton as oppressed because she is a woman.

Of course she is. It's just that she's a bourgeois woman, so the oppression is relatively timid and much less visible. But it would take a blind idiot to claim that bourgeois women aren't oppressed, despite all the privileges they receive as members of the ruling class.


we dont agree there is no imperialism. We think imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. We however, do not think reactionary islamist gangs can bring it down.

You ICC boys are just going to have to decide which way you're having your cake - either there is an imperialism but you don't support movements resisting it, in which case you openly allow imperialism to continue its policies of oppression exploitation, or all states are equally imperialist, in which case you would be faced with the humorous claim that Palestine is as imperialist as Israel or the US. Either way, your theory doesn't really make sense - but you are really going to have to choose.


it is rich you call me a racist. The only way you can call me "racist" is by implying i am some sort of arab uncle-tom because most of my family is arab and muslim.

If it talks like an uncle tom...


you are a liberal because you reject class analysis in favor of really muddy concepts of "oppression" where the motherfucking king of jordan can be "opressed" to.

Of course the king of Jordan is oppressed, because once his interests clash with those of the imperialists, they will toss him aside and install another ruler more loyal to them, not the other way around. And it should be clear by now that the liberals are those who reject any coherent theory of imperialism and who advocate "giving aid" to "poor Muslims" and "decent Palestinians." Again, your echoing of American racist rheotric ("liberal white guilt" etc.) exposes you as... what's the phrase you used?

[Pogue]

benhur, there's no point in me repeating what Yehuda has already said, because he's completely right. However, when you and others make comments like that it really makes me aware of the extent to which orientalist attitudes really are an integral and enduring feature not just of culture in the past, during the epoch of colonialism, but also of contemporary political views, even amongst those who see themselves as being in some way progressive or radical. The idea of a noble westerner traveling to the orient or spreading his message in order to liberate the orient from its superstitions and irrationalities is a constant theme of orientalist texts and the contemporary presentation of the Middle East in the media, and it's evident from all of your comments that you see Palestinians as essentially helpless beings who need your intervention to see the light, which, given your opposition to all anti-imperialist struggles, and your naive pacifism, would mean accepting Israeli oppression as a fact of life and something that can't be altered. Thankfully, nobody is ever going to listen to someone like you, because you have no knowledge of the situation in Palestine, and nothing to offer the people who suffer at the hands of Israel. Palestinians don't need any help in the form of meaningless and naive advice from people living in imperialist states. The only acceptable position for someone who lives in a state that is complicit in the oppression of the Palestinians or any other exploited nation is to give unconditional support to all struggles against this oppression regardless of whether such struggles are being led by reactionary or progressive organizations, but you're unwilling to do this, just like the rest of your liberal friends, because you fail to understand what imperialism is, and the impact that it has on people living in nations subject to imperialist oppression, and that means you have no right to consider yourself a member of any revolutionary movement.

Wow, you're so up yourself.

[Yehuda Stern]

Is the fact that your last replies to me and Bob are one liners starting with "wow" (or variants thereof) and having no interesting content, is this a veiled admission that all your arguments have been countered and you have no more to say, or are you secretly working on a genius article that will demolish everything we've said?

[black magick hustla]

ahahahaahahahahahahaha someone just implied i am a race traitor, fantastic. very cute stern.

[Pogue]

ahahahaahahahahahahaha someone just implied i am a race traitor, fantastic. very cute stern.

link or gtfo

[Yehuda Stern]

ahahahaahahahahahahaha someone just implied i am a race traitor, fantastic.

Not really - I implied that, Arab or not, Muslim or not, you in essence support imperialism against the oppressed nations. I also said, never implied, that you may very well be an uncle tom. That is, if your claims about your ethnicity are true. At any rate, I will take your cowardly mud slinging of a response to be a sign that our debate is over, and that you have nothing further to seriously say on the subject.

[black magick hustla]

Not really - I implied that, Arab or not, Muslim or not, you in essence support imperialism against the oppressed nations. I also said, never implied, that you may very well be an uncle tom. That is, if your claims about your ethnicity are true. At any rate, I will take your cowardly mud slinging of a response to be a sign that our debate is over, and that you have nothing further to seriously say on the subject.

Actually, it is not over. I am just doing homework. Uncle tom is a left epiphet for "race traitor" by the way, i am simply pointing this out. Its an extremely disturbing term used by left nationalists. At any rate Ill adress your points later.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, try to do them better this time. Last time, it didn't do you much good.

[benhur]

Is the fact that your last replies to me and Bob are one liners starting with "wow" (or variants thereof) and having no interesting content, is this a veiled admission that all your arguments have been countered and you have no more to say, or are you secretly working on a genius article that will demolish everything we've said?

What you and bob have said so far is nothing objective and rational, it's just your personal view, nothing more. Why must anyone refute it? Anyway, you and bob are hopeless racists, worse than imperialists because you're destroying the leftist movement from within. Enough said.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's our personal view (well, two seperate views actually, although we seem to be rather close on this subject) that you have been completely unable to refute. It's stupid to insinuate that our view is not objective or rational but personal, as if your view or anyone else's isn't personal, or that that somehow negates it being rational and objective. Regardless, irrational as my view may be, I have been able to defend it quite well, while all you have managed to do is whine and expose yourself once more as a racist. It's also very amusing to see you attempt to throw that accusation back at me - now I'm worse than the imperialists! I'm right up there with the Muslims, aren't I? Oh well - Zionists always tell me I'm worse than the arabs.

[BobKKKindle$]

benhur, there was nothing subjective about my last post. The main point I made is that the values and ideas you seem to be putting forward in relation to Muslims, specifically Palestinians who support Hamas, are strongly reminiscent of the ideas which can be found in any text or cultural artifact produced by a westerner about the Middle East and its inhabitants, especially prior to post-war decolonization, the key idea in this context being the notion that Palestinians are, like any other subsection of the Arab mentality (given that all Arabs think in the same way and can therefore be reduced to a manifestation of a transhistorical mentality) inherently irrational and unable to raise themselves to civilization without the aid of westerners who will enter the orient in order to help those who are clearly incapable of helping themselves, because they (i.e. the orientals) are still rooted in religion and tradition, and have not yet grasped the value of the scientific method and its associated benefits. In other words, you have internalized and now convey all of the central features of orientalism. If you disagree with this and believe you are actually being genuinely supportive of Muslims, then I would advise you to grab a copy of Edward Said's 'Orientalism' or any other text on the subject and look at some of the case studies the author uses to support his thesis, and you will see that the texts convey ideas which correspond closely to your own views, as in many cases the original producers were also under the illusion that by adopting a condescending attitude towards Muslims and calling for westerners to help the orient (often in the form of a direct political presence) they were also showing empathy and solidarity, and yet in reality they were disregarding the capacity for independent political action and military struggle amongst peoples suffering from imperialism and creating an ideological basis for one of the main sustaining myths behind imperialism - that of the white man's burden, whereby white men agree to take on the burden of bringing civilization and prosperity to the natives out of a sense of moral duty, however much they may regret the need to do so, as expressed in Kipling's poem of the same name. You may wonder why I'm making a big deal out of this, and accusing you of orientalism. The crucial reason why orientalism is such an issue for socialists and anyone else who cares about fighting imperialism is that it persists today despite the absence of formal empires, and continues to function not only as a legitimizing ideology for imperialist intervention, as we saw in the case of Iraq, but also as an indication of the extent to which imperialism has permeated western culture, and informs the way we view the inhabitants of the Middle East. Your attitudes towards Muslims cannot be separated from imperialism, and you've failed to acknowledge this.

Incidentally, I had the pleasure of meeting As'ad Abukhalil (author of http://angryarab.blogspot.com, and the guy I quoted in a previous thread who showed the translations of Hamas programming were faked) in person today, and he gave a great speech on the coverage of Palestine in the media, and especially the differences in the way the Anglo-American media covers Israelis and Palestinians - the former are always presented as individuals with feeling and opinions in order to encourage the audience to empathize with the Israelis and condemn attacks conducted against them, regardless of historical context and any crimes that may have been committed by the soldiers who are receiving such personal coverage, whereas Palestinians, when they are presented at all, are portrayed as a mass of people lacking individuality, and are thereby dehumanized and transformed into objects who have no claim to emotional suffering. This is manifested most clearly (he argued) in the recent film 'Waltz with Bashir' which presents the negative impact of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solely in terms of the nightmares that IDF troops allegedly suffer after taking part in the murder of civilians in Gaza and the Occupied Territories during military operations by engaging with the personal experiences and emotions of individual soldiers - there is no coverage or discussion of the far more meaningful harm suffered by the Palestinians in the form of death and the destruction of communities at the hands of the IDF, and the only time a Palestinian speaks during the entire film is at the very end, and only briefly, after hours of listening to Israeli soldiers lamenting the fact that they have to enter into the role of the oppressor and benefit from the suppression of the Palestinian people.

[Sam_b]

Anyway, you and bob are hopeless racists, worse than imperialists because you're destroying the leftist movement from within. Enough said.

This is rich coming from the so-called Trotskyist, who funnily enough, seems to have no Trotskyist politics whatsoever. By you complete and utter failure to make a distinction between the leadership of Hamas and the actual rank-and-file movement, you tarnish vast swathes of the Palestinian working class (especially with your racism-charged argument focusing on 'Islamic militants'). Its also fantastically and obscenely patrionising that at a time where Palestinians are being massacred and chemical weapons used on them that you show nothing but disdain for their legitimate right to resist and instead say that a revolutionary strategy is to send aid. Of course aid is important at a time where infrastructure is decimated, but equally as important is our solidarity with them and our understanding their reasons to fight against Israel for freedom.

The whole rationale of simply giving aid portrays the Palestinians as a desperate and helpless people who can only survive when the rich westernised countries throw them a bone. Your lack of any sort of empathy or any equilibrium when attacking Hamas (again, you seem to have much more to say on how 'bad' Hamas are than the actual oppressor forces of Israel) is shocking. You need to get some real politics, and fast.

[skki]

It never ceases to amaze me how frequently, and with such vigor; supposedly tolerant Socialists will jump to the defense of Homophobes, Racists and Islamofascists as long as they fight against US-backed Imperialism. And then decry us for not doing the same.

For these people, anti-Americanism trumps everything.

What are you Democratic Socialists doing on a revolutionary site anyway?

[BobKKKindle$]

We don't "jump to the defense" of Hamas whenever they face criticism - in fact, we acknowledge that Hamas is a reactionary movement and only fight against misrepresentations of Hamas in the interests of presenting a fair and accurate picture of what Hamas is like as a movement, given that, for most other socialists, the extent to which they are willing to identify with and support anti-imperialist struggles (such as the struggle against Israeli colonialism in the Middle East) is often influenced by the political character of the movements which lead these struggles, such that a struggle led by a semi-progressive movement such as the NLF is likely to gain more enthusiastic support within the radical left then a movement which is objectively antisemitic and advocates prejudiced views on a whole range of other issues, as in the case of Hamas. This is a flawed perspective, in that socialists should give unconditional support to anti-imperialist struggles regardless of whether their leaderships are progressive or reactionary, but in terms of winning the argument with other socialists, it is still sometimes beneficial and even necessary to combat misrepresentations, even when we do not identify politically with the movement under consideration. Nor is it an issue of being anti-American, as a genuine socialist opposes imperialism wherever and in whatever form it manifests itself - the SWP actually supported the struggle against Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan, despite the fact that a section of that struggle was being given financial and military backing by the US both before and during the Soviet occupation of the country.

[black magick hustla]

It came from people who, like yourself, believe that the bourgeoisie can fight imperialism. See, once again you show how ultra-lefts share in essence the beliefs of the opportunists. Now, of course the bourgeoisie can find itself in some military conflict in some situations. However, it cannot fight imperialism collectively, as it manifests itself in the collective exploitation of the third world by imperialism.

You are starting to sound like bob. I don´t think the bourgeosie can fight imperialism because they are part of it, however imperialism is an epoch not some sort of monolithic western entity. I was simply stating that, as history has shown, there has been many "landlords" and "capitalists", in fact too many of them that render the whole idea of socialist "national liberation" laughable, that have confronted american and israeli imperialism. There are certainly third world national capitalists that have interests opposite to the ones of americans.




Of course she is. It's just that she's a bourgeois woman, so the oppression is relatively timid and much less visible. But it would take a blind idiot to claim that bourgeois women aren't oppressed, despite all the privileges they receive as members of the ruling class.Oppressed by whom?




You ICC boys are just going to have to decide which way you're having your cake - either there is an imperialism but you don't support movements resisting it, in which case you openly allow imperialism to continue its policies of oppression exploitation, or all states are equally imperialist, in which case you would be faced with the humorous claim that Palestine is as imperialist as Israel or the US. Either way, your theory doesn't really make sense - but you are really going to have to choose.The communist left's position onthis issue is really clear. Of course Palestine is not an "imperialist power", but groups like hamas are proxies of other imperialist factions that try to prop their influence in the region, in this case Iran. Of course that bloc is not as powerful but the fact that they do not have equal standing with the americans does not reject the fact that by the nature of the present epoch they are wishing to expand their sphere of influence.






Of course the king of Jordan is oppressed, because once his interests clash with those of the imperialists, they will toss him aside and install another ruler more loyal to them, not the other way around. And it should be clear by now that the liberals are those who reject any coherent theory of imperialism and who advocate "giving aid" to "poor Muslims" and "decent Palestinians." ?I think liberals are people who use words like opression liberally on members of the ruling class like the king of jordan. Just because some capitalists are more powerful than others does not mean that they are "opressed" which is really laughable and against any pretense of common sense. What is next, Carlos Slim who is a lebanese-mexican and one of the top five richest men in the world is opressed? give me a fucking break.


Well, try to do them better this time. Last time, it didn't do you much good. you wish

[BobKKKindle$]

Oppressed by whom? Is this a serious question? Hillary Clinton is oppressed by the patriarchal state, most obviously. If she becomes pregnant and then decides in the third trimester that she wants to have an abortion, she does not have the legal right to do so because the state imposes restrictions on how much control women are allowed to exercise over their bodies, and punishes those who refuse to comply, and will therefore have no choice but to either give birth, and deal with the associated problems relating to her personal freedom and capacity for participation in public life, or obtain an abortion through other means. The fact that she is a member of the ruling class means that Hillary Clinton does not experience this oppression (as well as the other forms of oppression in which patriarchy manifests itself) in the same way as other women but the fact remains that she does suffer oppression by virtue of the fact that she is a woman, and all women, regardless of their class status, are systematically oppressed and disadvantaged as long as they inhabit a patriarchal society, unlike men, who do not endure the same restrictions, and are not oppressed as a sex. The oppression that women suffer in terms of the expectations which compel them to adopt certain standards of behavior was even apparent during the election campaign, as Hillary Clinton was frequently accused of not being warm and friendly enough in the way she engaged with other candidates and put her views across - in other words, she was identified as having not conformed to the submissive female gender role as much as she should have done, in the eyes of chauvinists. A failure to identify and engage with these high-profile instances of patriarchal oppression amounts to an acceptance of gender roles, and the unequal power relationships they generate.

[robbo203]

It never ceases to amaze me how frequently, and with such vigor; supposedly tolerant Socialists will jump to the defense of Homophobes, Racists and Islamofascists as long as they fight against US-backed Imperialism. And then decry us for not doing the same.

For these people, anti-Americanism trumps everything.

What are you Democratic Socialists doing on a revolutionary site anyway?


I agree. There is only one consistent and principled socialist approach to the Hamas -Israeli conflict and that is to assert in no uncertain terms - a plague on both your houses! Stuff your nationalistic religion-fuelled claptrap! There will be no peace until Israeli and Palestinian workers recognise that they have a common interest in unting against capitalism and the ridiculous national barriers it imposes on them

[Cumannach]

Ultra lefts suffer from black and white vision. Because Hamas is not a communist party it goes into the bad column. Any conflict between non-communists is just background noise of no interest to pure communists. God forbid we take advantage of their discord to further our own position.

But I agree with Marx who supported the Irish independence movement against British Imperialism even though there was not a communist to be seen on the island in or out of the resistance movements.

[robbo203]

Ultra lefts suffer from black and white vision. Because Hamas is not a communist party it goes into the bad column. Any conflict between non-communists is just background noise of no interest to pure communists. God forbid we take advantage of their discord to further our own position.

But I agree with Marx who supported the Irish independence movement against British Imperialism even though there not a communist to be seen on the island in or out of the resistance movements.

Marx only supported national liberation struggles - not for their own sake - but as a means of getting rid of reactionary pre-capitalist elements that hindered the development of capitalism and hence the prospects of communism. He would have been the first to acknowledge that today, now that capitalism is a fully globalised system, any kind of nationalism is utterly reactionary. As indeed it is. To support nationalism today in any shape or form is actually to help sustain the insidious myth that workers and capitalists of any particular country have a commonality of interests . By obscuring the class cleavage that exists in every country in the world this can only serve to impede the growth of class consciousness and hence, the prospects of socialism / communism ever coming about.

Do I take it then from your comments that this is something of which you approve?

[skki]

We don't "jump to the defense" of Hamas whenever they face criticism - in fact, we acknowledge that Hamas is a reactionary movement and only fight against misrepresentations of Hamas in the interests of presenting a fair and accurate picture of what Hamas is like as a movement, given that, for most other socialists, the extent to which they are willing to identify with and support anti-imperialist struggles (such as the struggle against Israeli colonialism in the Middle East) is often influenced by the political character of the movements which lead these struggles, such that a struggle led by a semi-progressive movement such as the NLF is likely to gain more enthusiastic support within the radical left then a movement which is objectively antisemitic and advocates prejudiced views on a whole range of other issues, as in the case of Hamas. This is a flawed perspective, in that socialists should give unconditional support to anti-imperialist struggles regardless of whether their leaderships are progressive or reactionary, but in terms of winning the argument with other socialists, it is still sometimes beneficial and even necessary to combat misrepresentations, even when we do not identify politically with the movement under consideration. Nor is it an issue of being anti-American, as a genuine socialist opposes imperialism wherever and in whatever form it manifests itself - the SWP actually supported the struggle against Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan, despite the fact that a section of that struggle was being given financial and military backing by the US both before and during the Soviet occupation of the country.

The SWP supported the Taliban as well?! Why are you people so intent on finding a struggle between two evils just to support the underdog?

All I have seen from the SWP side so far in this thread, and other related threads, is either an apologetic argument for Hamas or full out support. Admittedly not as enthusiastic in their support as they could be, but considering the nature of Hamas as a misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic, mass-murdering, fascist governing body, it's still far too much. I rarely see anyone on your side concede any negative points about Hamas. And when they do, the crimes of Hamas are viewed as trivial misdemenours; and their policies a far cry better than Israeli imperealism.

[skki]

Ultra lefts suffer from black and white vision. Because Hamas is not a communist party it goes into the bad column. Any conflict between non-communists is just background noise of no interest to pure communists. God forbid we take advantage of their discord to further our own position.

But I agree with Marx who supported the Irish independence movement against British Imperialism even though there not a communist to be seen on the island in or out of the resistance movements.
There is no way you have even lightly skimmed this thread and come to this conclusion honestly. The problem with Hamas is not that they aren't Communists, but that they are Sharia touting Islamofascists. The Irish independence movement cannot be compared with Hamas. To do so is an insult to every member of the Irish resistance past and present.

[Sam_b]

I tend to find that people who resort to the term 'Islamofascist' actually have no real politics, and no real argument either.

[skki]

I tend to find that people who resort to the term 'Islamofascist' actually have no real politics, and no real argument either.
I had already listed the most despicable policies of Hamas two replies ago. To do so again would have been repetitive. I think Islamofascist nicely sums up the homphobic, misogynist, anti-semitic, fascistic policies of far-right Islamic extremist groups such as Hamas in one little word.

And funnily enough, I find that people resort to attacking grammer, spelling, wording etc rather than the argument at hand, when they have nothing genuine to respond with.

[Sam_b]

You've added nothing to the debate whatsoever. I've dealt with those loaded responses previously. Tell me, what do you know about the actual structure of Hamas, and the grassroots movement of Palestinians within it. Are you going to label them as 'fascist' as well?

Your argument (if you can even call it an argument) is light on the issue of imperialism, and whether or not it is possible to build a viable and mass socialist movement in the conditions at hand.

[GX.]

i dont know about this but i believe political islam is an utterly reactionary current that must be opposed intransigently by every communist worth their salt. political islam consolidated itself after crushing working class militants in places like iran. communists that get murdered habitually by islamists are not concerned by the white guilt complex of western leftists. once upon a time, islam represented a positive force in history that came with wonderful scientists and some novel approaches to gender roles. Today, however, political islam is one of the most reactionary political tendencies in the third world.
That has absolutely nothing to do with benhur's formulation that Islamism=Iran-esque theocracy, which is what I was talking about. And, white guilt complex? Come on, are you trying to immitate Sean Hannity?

[skki]

You've added nothing to the debate whatsoever. I've dealt with those loaded responses previously. Tell me, what do you know about the actual structure of Hamas, and the grassroots movement of Palestinians within it. Are you going to label them as 'fascist' as well?

Your argument (if you can even call it an argument) is light on the issue of imperialism, and whether or not it is possible to build a viable and mass socialist movement in the conditions at hand.
I have had to go over this twice now. You're starting to tire me.
I have already explained the basic concept of Hamas as a political organization as well as some of their policies and ideologies. If these grassroot movements of Palestinians working within Hamas agree with those ideologies and policies, then yes they are Fascists. If they don't, they aren't. I hate having to explain such simple things so if you could be so kind as to carry your share of the intellectual burden from now on this will be much easier on both of us.

On the issue of Palestinians resisting Israel through force; of course it is impossible. There is no plausable situation in which Hamas, with their antique weaponery could stand up to the Israeli's. It's a non-issue. Not worth our time discussing it. All they can do at the moment is antagonize the IDF into conducting a bloody invasion, like the one we just saw. The only realistic strategy I can see, is to raise awareness. Most specifically in countries like the USA that provide arms for the IDF. There is already a growing resistance to what Israel is doing in Palestine amongst westeners, and if that is encouraged, then polticians may eventually be forced to retreat from their pro-Israel stances. As for the Palestinians themselves, I would recommend some form of non-violent resistance, and the immediate overthrow of Hamas to prevent any further IDF baiting.

I see no reason for Socialism to play a part in this conflict.

[BobKKKindle$]

I have already explained the basic concept of Hamas as a political organization as well as some of their policies and ideologiesWho is the "their" in this sentence referring to? The point that Sam_b is making is that because Hamas does not function in the same way as the political parties to which we are accustomed in the imperialist countries, but is instead a social movement involved in every aspect of Palestinian society, especially in its dual capacity as a key provider of social services and as the leading section of the resistance against the IDF, on this basis it makes no sense to speak of Hamas having a coherent ideology or set of ideas that all of its members and supporters are bound to uphold, for the simple reason that this does not accurately reflect the nature of Hamas as a political force, and is derived from an attempt to apply western political concepts and norms to a situation that can only be understood on its own terms. Hamas is a complex organization in that its different elements do not all display the same ideological background or motivations, and by far the most important division within the organization is between the reactionary leadership and those at the lower levels who have become ordinary militants in order to avenge the death of their family members or gain access to a stable source of income and community support - even if we accept your unsupported assertion that Hamas is a fascist organization, it would be stupid to assume that if someone joins Hamas for pragmatic/personal reasons they also qualify as a hardened fascist regardless of their personal beliefs, given this lack of internal unity.

All of this, of course, is based on the assumption that the political character of Hamas matters. You seem to be under the impression that if someone supports an anti-imperialist struggle that is being led by a reactionary organization such as Hamas, then, regardless of any material or political benefits that the working class might be able to obtain by supporting the struggle against imperialism and defending itself against military assault, as recently occurred in Lebanon through the efforts of Hezbollah to defeat the IDF, any socialists who adopt this position of support must automatically be showing political and ideological solidarity with the resistance movement itself, which, in the case of Hamas, means we are homophobic, sexist, and so on. But this is an entirely false position. Socialists do not identify with Hamas, but we do recognize that Palestine occupies the position of an oppressed nation, and because of this the Palestinian working class has a right to defend itself against Israel even when this defense is being conducted through methods that we might not always agree with such as launching rockets and organizing suicide attacks against civilians, and it also means that it is in the interests of workers throughout the world for Israel to be defeated, as this would signify a blow against imperialism, and therefore a political defeat for the capitalist system itself, given that imperialism is but a stage in the development of capitalism.


On the issue of Palestinians resisting Israel through force; of course it is impossible. There is no plausable situation in which Hamas, with their antique weaponery could stand up to the Israeli's. It's a non-issue. Not worth our time discussing itOn the contrary, this is a vitally important issue. Despite commanding the military backing of the world's leading imperialist powers, especially the United States, which uses Israel as a means to enhance and protect its own imperial interests in the Middle East, Israel can be defeated in a military engagement - Hezbollah demonstrated this in the 2006 conflict in southern Lebanon, and following the IDF retreat they also gave us an insight into why they command such support and respect amongst Shia communities in Lebanon and in other parts of the Middle East by successfully rebuilding the areas that had been damaged by the IDF assault. The invasion of Gaza this year was in many ways an attempt to demonstrate that the IDF was still an effective military apparatus and capable of defeating an underfunded resistance movement such as Hamas, but even in this case there is reason to believe that Hamas played a vital role in protecting Palestinians against what might otherwise have been a brutal invasion followed by a prolonged occupation. It has been acknowledged even by the bourgeois media that the IDF limited its assault to the areas surrounding Gaza City and did not choose to enter the city itself, despite the fact that the majority of Hamas strongholds are located inside Gaza City, as the IDF was aware that if they had chosen to do so they would have been at a disadvantage and suffered heavy casualties in conditions that are well-suited to a mobile resistance movement that has advanced knowledge of the surrounding area and is also capable of merging with the civilian population with strategic imperatives require them to. From this perspective, the mere presence of Hamas had a protective role, even if any resistance movement is powerless to stop air strikes and artillery fire. Would you prefer there to have been no resistance movement, thereby allowing Israel to create a permanent occupation in Gaza?


There is already a growing resistance to what Israel is doing in Palestine amongst westenersThis is great, but it's something that only takes place over a long period of time, and is of no hope to people who are in desperate need of education and healthcare, and live with the fear that their homes will be destroyed by an imperialist onslaught.

It is interesting, though, that you feel capable of "recommending" a course of action to the Palestinians. What makes you think that you have a better idea of how to fight Israeli aggression that the people who actually have to endure it, i.e. the Palestinians themselves?


As for the Palestinians themselves, I would recommend some form of non-violent resistance, and the immediate overthrow of Hamas to prevent any further IDF baitingPalestinians actually tried "non-violent resistance" for almost two decades following the creation of Israel until the emergence of the PLO and other militant resistance movements in 1964. During this period, the suffering of the Palestinian people was relatively unknown outside of the Middle East because Palestinians had no means by which they could draw attention to their position and history, and it was only after resistance began to move in a more militant and violent direction that people began to take notice of the situation in Palestine. As for "IDF baiting", this is exactly the excuse that the IDF put forward to justify the invasion and murder of Palestinian civilians - that Israel had been forced to intervene to stop its citizens being hit by rocket attacks launched from the Gaza Strip, in accordance with the right of each and every state to defend itself against aggression and protect the lives of its citizens. In reality, it was Israel that broke the ceasefire, and during the intervening period between the signing of the ceasefire in June 2008 and its collapse later in the same year, the rockets launched by Hamas were almost minimal. It has subsequently been shown that the IDF began drawing up a plan for the invasion almost as soon as the ceasefire agreement was signed (source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/29/israel-attack-hamas-preparations-repercussions)) suggesting that it was, at best, a temporary agreement, designed to allow the IDF to prepare for the next attack on the rights of the Palestinian people. Next time, get your facts right instead of trying to justify imperialism and put the blame on the resistance movement.


I see no reason for Socialism to play a part in this conflict. Yet you also label Palestinians "fascists" because they support Hamas. If you are so oppossed to Hamas that you think that the movement's supporters can be equated with members of the Nazi party, then why are you also oppossed to the goal of building a socialist resistance to take the place of Hamas? Any socialist organization that wants to engage with the urban poor - who currently comprise an important part of the support base of Hamas - will have no choice but to become part of the resistance and fight back against Israel, given that it was precisely the willingness on the part of Hamas to resist that caused Palestinians to switch from Fatah and support Hamas in the first place, and so for this reason, as long as you continue to call for non-violence, which basically equates to Palestinians sitting at home watching the settlements pop up along the seaside, Hamas will retain its dominance.

[GX.]

The communist left's position onthis issue is really clear. Of course Palestine is not an "imperialist power", but groups like hamas are proxies of other imperialist factions that try to prop their influence in the region, in this case Iran. Of course that bloc is not as powerful but the fact that they do not have equal standing with the americans does not reject the fact that by the nature of the present epoch they are wishing to expand their sphere of influence.

How is Hamas a proxy of Iran? Most of their funding comes out of Saudi Arabia and other Western-alligned regimes, and through charity organizations, not Iran. And, even if Iran was supplying rockets to Hamas, that would do little to advance their interests other than to agitate Israel. Isn't it the left communists on here who are always saying how Hamas' rocket attacks do nothing but get Palestinians killed? Only to turn around and argue that they're advancing the Iranian imperialist sphere of influence? The idea that Iran is an empire with proxy groups through which it extends its sphere of influence, and that Hamas is one of these groups, is to be frank only slightly less laughable than the idea that Palestine is an imperial power.

[BobKKKindle$]

How is Hamas a proxy of Iran?The fundamental problem with this argument (i.e. the left-communist position re: proxy wars) is that it equates imperialism with having the ability to influence affairs in other countries, and so on that basis, the argument goes, because Hamas is supported by donors in other countries, it must logically follow that these donor countries are imperialist, and Hamas is nothing but a tool in the hands of the ruling classes of these countries by which they pursue their own imperialist ends in the same way as the US and other countries that are universally accepted as imperialist by all sections of the left. This position is derived primarily from Luxemburg's argument that the reproduction and accumulation of capital necessarily requires countries to search out pre-capitalist states to exploit and to continuously look beyond their own borders to locate profitable outlets for capital, and yet her economic analysis, however useful as a basis for discussion, is fundamentally flawed in that it misunderstands how capital operates. In reality, although it would be stupid to deny that Hamas receives donations from Saudi Arabia, this is by no means the basis of the movement's success in building up a support base and establishing itself as the dominant political force in Gaza, and it also does not negate the fact that, as a producer of a single primary commodity that is susceptible to price fluctuations, and as a country without significant assets overseas, Saudi Arabia is an oppressed nation, in the same way as Iran, Syria, etc, despite the fact that these countries may sometimes act in ways that one would normally associate with an imperialist country, such as using military force to establish political and/or economic dominance.

[GX.]

In reality, although it would be stupid to deny that Hamas receives donations from Saudi Arabia, this is by no means the basis of the movement's success in building up a support base and establishing itself as the dominant political force in Gaza, Yes, of course. By the same token, the Bolsheviks were obviously not a proxy of Germany.


and it also does not negate the fact that, as a producer of a single primary commodity that is susceptible to price fluctuations, and as a country without significant assets overseas, Saudi Arabia is an oppressed nation, in the same way as Iran, Syria, etc, despite the fact that these countries may sometimes act in ways that one would normally associate with an imperialist country, such as using military force to establish political and/or economic dominance. of course I agree with this as well.

[black magick hustla]

Is this a serious question? Hillary Clinton is oppressed by the patriarchal state, most obviously. If she becomes pregnant and then decides in the third trimester that she wants to have an abortion, she does not have the legal right to do so because the state imposes restrictions on how much control women are allowed to exercise over their bodies, and punishes those who refuse to comply, and will therefore have no choice but to either give birth, and deal with the associated problems relating to her personal freedom and capacity for participation in public life, or obtain an abortion through other means. The fact that she is a member of the ruling class means that Hillary Clinton does not experience this oppression (as well as the other forms of oppression in which patriarchy manifests itself) in the same way as other women but the fact remains that she does suffer oppression by virtue of the fact that she is a woman, and all women, regardless of their class status, are systematically oppressed and disadvantaged as long as they inhabit a patriarchal society, unlike men, who do not endure the same restrictions, and are not oppressed as a sex. The oppression that women suffer in terms of the expectations which compel them to adopt certain standards of behavior was even apparent during the election campaign, as Hillary Clinton was frequently accused of not being warm and friendly enough in the way she engaged with other candidates and put her views across - in other words, she was identified as having not conformed to the submissive female gender role as much as she should have done, in the eyes of chauvinists. A failure to identify and engage with these high-profile instances of patriarchal oppression amounts to an acceptance of gender roles, and the unequal power relationships they generate.

This instances are barely noticeable in the ruling class layers though. It is true that Clinton, by virtue of being a politician, has to deal with her image. But most ruling class women can probably take abortions and not deal with that much social repercussions. Point taken though. Still, I dont think it applies to "arab landlords", especially inside their countries.

[robbo203]

The fundamental problem with this argument (i.e. the left-communist position re: proxy wars) is that it equates imperialism with having the ability to influence affairs in other countries, and so on that basis, the argument goes, because Hamas is supported by donors in other countries, it must logically follow that these donor countries are imperialist, and Hamas is nothing but a tool in the hands of the ruling classes of these countries by which they pursue their own imperialist ends in the same way as the US and other countries that are universally accepted as imperialist by all sections of the left. This position is derived primarily from Luxemburg's argument that the reproduction and accumulation of capital necessarily requires countries to search out pre-capitalist states to exploit and to continuously look beyond their own borders to locate profitable outlets for capital, and yet her economic analysis, however useful as a basis for discussion, is fundamentally flawed in that it misunderstands how capital operates. In reality, although it would be stupid to deny that Hamas receives donations from Saudi Arabia, this is by no means the basis of the movement's success in building up a support base and establishing itself as the dominant political force in Gaza, and it also does not negate the fact that, as a producer of a single primary commodity that is susceptible to price fluctuations, and as a country without significant assets overseas, Saudi Arabia is an oppressed nation, in the same way as Iran, Syria, etc, despite the fact that these countries may sometimes act in ways that one would normally associate with an imperialist country, such as using military force to establish political and/or economic dominance.


This whole discourse of oppressed versus oppressor nations is one that it is utterly irrelevant to communists. It presupposes a commitment to, or support for, certain nation states as against others. It is nationalistic in its orientation and therefore draws attention away from the fundamental class cleavage that exists in every country by assuming a commonality of interests between capitalists and workers in each country. It is therefore
a fundamentally anti-communist perspective which hinders the development of working class consciousness.

Communists do not take sides in the dispute between so called oppressed nations and so called oppressor nations. Yes I know Marx will ,at this point, be wheeled out and extensively quoted but Marx´s pragamatic support for certain national liberation struggles was only with a view to fostering the rapid development of capitalism. He did not support nationalism per se and opposed other national liberation struggles such as among the Slavs which he felt would not facilitate capitalism and hence speed up the arrival of communism. In the Manifesto his view on the matter was clear: in communism there would no longer be any countires or nation states.

In any case, as Marx himself would surely agree ,any pragmatic support for national liberation struggle that might have been justifiable a hundred fifty years ago is now totally indefensible. Capitalism is a fully globalised system and the case for supporting national liberation struggles - such as it is - died long ago with the consolidation of capitalism at a global level and in every nation state on the face of the globe.

Marx was right. The workers have no country. Why the friggin hell do you still get leftists calling themselves communists or socialists urging us to align ourselves with one ruling class in its squabbles with another. Stuff that! It is of no interest to me what national flag I toil under as a wage slave. The whole idea is absurd. Who owns Amercia or the UK or Saudi Arabia? Actually, more and more it is the international capitalist class. Capital is multinational these days and these dreary leftists who rattle on about oppressed nations and oppressor nations are living in the past

What is the point of it all. So Saudi Arabia is objectively an oppressed nation, eh? Oh right, so now we must spring to the defence of this reactionary regime in its dealing with the West, must we? No? Well if "no" then why bother calling it an oppressed nation. The point of calling it that is surely to elicit sympathy and support. Well this communist for one has no sympathy for the corrupt regime of Saudi Arabia

All nations are imperialist because all nations are capitalist and the dynamic of capitalism is expansionist. Its just that some nations are more successful at being imperialist powers than others

[Yehuda Stern]

There have been two pages of debate since I've last written here, so obviously I'm not going to answer everything. I'll just say this: all the liberal-sentimental platitudes of those who refuse to oppose imperialism, covered by radical rhetoric, have been dealt with quite crushingly already. New users think that by repeating the same arguments used before in a more shrill and hysteric manner will make those who argue for support for Palestine against imperialist attacks (and yes, for Saudi Arabia too, and for any oppressed nation regardless of its regime) forget that we have actually already answered everything, but received no answers from them.

I have personally shown that both Lenin and Trotsky, as well as Marx and Engels, have given support to national liberation struggles despite their leaderships, because this clearly weakened imperialism and strengthened the democratic and socialist consciousness of the oppressed masses. I have also shown that the ultra-lefts have no coherent theory of imperialism, and that the old Marxist cliche of ultra-leftism being no different in essence from opportunism expresses itself in the fact that, unlike the ISL, they believe the bourgeoisie of the third world can fight imperialism - they just don't support that struggle, making their position all the more criminal.

As I have said, of course Marxists fight for the independence of the working class and for its overthrow of capitalism and the creation of workers states. The question is how to do this. The ultra-lefts offer no way forward: Palestinian workers, drown in your own blood until you become good Marxists!

This sage advice will never be heeded, nor should it be. The Palestinians have always fought, will always keep fighting, until they will win back their land. This can only happen through a regional socialist revolution. Marxists can win the leadership of this revolution because they will always support the struggles of the masses and offer a way forward. Ultra-lefts will wallow in obscurity, their infantile, super-radical mantras notwithstanding.

[robbo203]

I have personally shown that both Lenin and Trotsky, as well as Marx and Engels, have given support to national liberation struggles despite their leaderships, because this clearly weakened imperialism and strengthened the democratic and socialist consciousness of the oppressed masses. I have also shown that the ultra-lefts have no coherent theory of imperialism, and that the old Marxist cliche of ultra-leftism being no different in essence from opportunism expresses itself in the fact that, unlike the ISL, they believe the bourgeoisie of the third world can fight imperialism - they just don't support that struggle, making their position all the more criminal.

As I have said, of course Marxists fight for the independence of the working class and for its overthrow of capitalism and the creation of workers states. The question is how to do this. The ultra-lefts offer no way forward: Palestinian workers, drown in your own blood until you become good Marxists!

This sage advice will never be heeded, nor should it be. The Palestinians have always fought, will always keep fighting, until they will win back their land. This can only happen through a regional socialist revolution. Marxists can win the leadership of this revolution because they will always support the struggles of the masses and offer a way forward. Ultra-lefts will wallow in obscurity, their infantile, super-radical mantras notwithstanding.

What a load of utter self righteous tosh. And ill informed at that!

For starters, Marx and Engels only supported national liberation struggles when and where they thought it would aid the development of capitalism and hence the prospects of socialism, by removing reactionary feudalistic influences. They were very selective in this. They did not support slavic independence movements , for example, becuase they did not consider this would aid the development of capitalism. They certainly did not support nationalism as such and in fact look forward to a communist future in which nation-states would completely disappear.

Already by the 1870s, Marx was beginning to question any kind of supports for national liberation struggle. The rationale for such support was rapidly disappearing, By the turn of the last century it had disappeared completely. Capitalism had become a fully globalised system . After that, there was no justification whatsoever for supporting so called national liberation struggles. It is only conservative reactionaries like Yehuda Stern with their ostrich-like heads firmly implanted in the sand who continue to bleat self indulgently about the need to "fight imperialism". Actually, all nation states are factually or potentially imperialist , even the little ones.

Vanguardists like Stern who prattle on about winning the "leadership of a revolution" that will restore the land to the palestinians conveniently overlook that the "palestinians" are not a homogenous entity. A full blown palestinian state, like every other state in the modern world, would be a capitalist state. He has the nerve to claim "ultra-lefts offer no way forward: Palestinian workers, drown in your own blood until you become good Marxists". But hey! - who the friggin hell is urging palestinians to fight and presumably die for "their" land. Not marxists! We say stuff Hamas! Stuff the Israeli state! We do what we can to encourage our fellow workers in these capitalist territoriial units called "Israel" and "Palestine" or whatever, to transcend these artificial national boundaries.

If there is anything that is really "criminal" it is the nationalistic claptrap that these leninst opportunists come out with which only serves to obscure the fundamental class cleavage in society by positing a supposed communality of interests between capitalists and workers in the form of the so called "nation"

[BobKKKindle$]

For starters, Marx and Engels only supported national liberation struggles when and where they thought it would aid the development of capitalism and hence the prospects of socialismExcept, this is completely wrong. Marx actually advocated the exact opposite in some cases by supporting imperialist expansion when this process would result in capitalism being introduced to countries that would otherwise have remained feudal, or rooted in other pre-capitalist modes of production, and therefore incapable of undergoing development and raising the productive forces to the level necessary to carry out a socialist revolution. Lenin and other Marxists who analyzed capitalism in its imperialist stage were also clear that supporting struggles against imperialism is not just about eliminating pre-capitalist economic and political formations, but also involves political questions relating to the practical significance of internationalism and the relationship between imperialism and class consciousness. Lenin in particular was clear that socialists have a duty to support these struggles, even when they are being led by reactionary organizations, because internationalism is meaningless unless socialists are willing to condemn instances of oppression that are being conducted and/or justified by the nation they inhabit, which includes supporting movements that are striking blows against the imperialist system, and lending this support is also the only way to break down the chauvinism of the oppressor-nation working class and establish a basis for a joint proletarian struggle involving workers of both imperialist and exploited states against capitalism on a world scale. This is what Lenin meant when he argued that "a nation which oppresses other nations cannot itself be free". In addition, for socialists who live inside countries that face imperialist attack, such as Palestine, it is unlikely that they will ever be able to gain a hearing amongst the rest of the working class if they refuse to join the struggle against the single biggest obstacle to liberation that the workers of these countries encounter, namely, imperialism, especially when it manifests itself in the form of military occupation and direct political control, instead of mere economic dominance. Ultra-lefts, on the other hand, expect workers to sit by and watch Israeli tanks destroy homes, because a single act of resistance would be giving in to bourgeois nationalism and taken as evidence that Hamas or some other organization has persuaded Palestinian workers to give up their lives in order to advance the interests of the national bourgeoisie. The notion that resistance might actually be in the class interests of Palestinian workers, and that these workers have not been brainwashed by Hamas, but are actually capable of making rational judgments based on their knowledge of how Israeli imperialism operates on the ground never enters into the considerations of the ultra-lefts, because they insist on adopting a patronizing and misinformed view of workers in nations that are being oppressed by imperialism.



A full blown palestinian state, like every other state in the modern world, would be a capitalist state. Actually, the situation is more complex than this. Trotsky observed that, in nations that have only entered capitalist development recently, after the states that experienced industrialization during the 19th century and have since become the world's leading imperialist powers, the bourgeoisie is closely tied to the interests of the imperialist powers and is therefore incapable of presenting an effective solution to the national problem, despite the fact that national independence has traditionally been seen as one of the bourgeoisie's historic tasks, based on the experience of first capitalist states. This means that the only classes that are capable of carrying out national liberation are the proletariat, as well as the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie, although it is often the case that the petty-bourgeoisie assumes the leading role in these struggles, which is reflected in the ideology and political orientation of movements such as Hamas and the ANC. The countries surrounding Palestine are currently under the control of bourgeois leaders who have compromised with Israeli imperialism and now function as key allies of the US in the Middle East, especially in the case of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, which is now the world's second biggest recipient of US military aid, just after Israel. The SWP argues that the only way the Palestinian people will ever be able to achieve full liberation in the form of a unitary state encompassing the whole of what is currently Israel as well as the areas nominally under the control of the PA, with equal rights being given to all ethnic groups, is if the workers of the surrounding countries smash their puppet regimes and establish workers state capable of rejecting all deals with imperialism and giving full support to the Palestinian struggle for liberation.

PS. "Vanguardist" is not a word.

[robbo203]

Except, this is completely wrong. Marx actually advocated the exact opposite in some cases by supporting imperialist expansion when this process would result in capitalism being introduced to countries that would otherwise have remained feudal, or rooted in other pre-capitalist modes of production, and therefore incapable of undergoing development and raising the productive forces to the level necessary to carry out a socialist revolution. .


How does this demonstrate I am completely wrong? Saying that Marx supported imperialist expansion in some cases does not mean that in other cases he did support national liberation struggles. You are misinformed if you think otherwise. Marx clearly supported objectives like the unification of Germany and Italy, and national independence for Poland and Ireland, becuase he felt promised to improve the conditions under which the workers of those countries struggled. He never support nationalist struggles for their own sake, the litmus was always what facilitated capitalism and hence expedited the socialist revolution in the long run. He opposed the national liberation struggles of czezhs and the southern slavs becuase he regarded these as reactionary nations and outposts of tsardom .


In addition, he saw solidarity with these national struggles as an essential part of educating the workers of the oppressor nations in internationalism.Lenin and other Marxists who analyzed capitalism in its imperialist stage were also clear that supporting struggles against imperialism is not just about eliminating pre-capitalist economic and political formations, but also involves political questions relating to the practical significance of internationalism and the relationship between imperialism and class consciousness. .

Marx was already by 1871 beginning to shift his position on national liberation struggle and argued thus "The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug, intended to defer the struggle of classes and to be thrown aside as soon as that class struggle bursts out into civil war. Class rule is no longer able to disguise itself in a national uniform; the national governments are one as against the proletariat!"


You talk about solidarity with national liberation struggles - what about solidarity with the workers in these countries in their struggles against their capitalists. You dont educate the workers about internationalism by engaging in national liberation struggles, you achieve that by transcending nationalism. What you are advocating is simply nationalism and this is against the interests of the working class



Lenin in particular was clear that socialists have a duty to support these struggles, even when they are being led by reactionary organizations, because internationalism is meaningless unless socialists are willing to condemn instances of oppression that are being conducted and/or justified by the nation they inhabit, which includes supporting movements that are striking blows against the imperialist system, and lending this support is also the only way to break down the chauvinism of the oppressor-nation working class and establish a basis for a joint proletarian struggle involving workers of both imperialist and exploited states against capitalism on a world scale. This is what Lenin meant when he argued that "a nation which oppresses other nations cannot itself be free". .

I hold no brief for Lenin and, as a marxist, I oppose Leninism. If Lenin considered that workers have a duty to support national liberation struggles even when the rationale for supporting such struggles had completeñy disappeared by the start of the 20th century, then Lenin´s view quite candidly was an obsolete and even reactionary one. There are now no grounds whatsoever for supporting national liberation struggles. You dont break down chauvinism by identitifying with the national chavinism of those countries seeking national liberation. If the workers of these countires are to fight against capitalism on a world scale that means they must also fight against capitalism on their door step and they can hardly do that if they join forces with their class enemies in the quest for so called national liberation. Finally the notion that the world is divided up into imperialist state and exploited states is just so much tosh. Capital is multinational these days. It is not only the British capitalist class that owns Britain but also the capitalists from France, USA, Saudia Arabia, Japan , etc etc etc. The same with every other country. The super rich comprador bougeoisie of the so called third world are hardly being exploited but the logic of your argument is that we should identify with these parasites



In addition, for socialists who live inside countries that face imperialist attack, such as Palestine, it is unlikely that they will ever be able to gain a hearing amongst the rest of the working class if they refuse to join the struggle against the single biggest obstacle to liberation that the workers of these countries encounter, namely, imperialism, especially when it manifests itself in the form of military occupation and direct political control, instead of mere economic dominance..

What do you mean they are unlikely to gain a hearing among the rest of the working class? It depends, doesnt it, on what they are trying to say. If you are a nationalisti calling for an independent palestine this is not going to be a burning issue for workers in the Punjab. This is the problem with national liberation struggle - quite apart from the cosying up with bourgeoisie and blurring the class lines - it fragments the international working class



Ultra-lefts, on the other hand, expect workers to sit by and watch Israeli tanks destroy homes, because a single act of resistance would be giving in to bourgeois nationalism and taken as evidence that Hamas or some other organization has persuaded Palestinian workers to give up their lives in order to advance the interests of the national bourgeoisie. ..

This is complete bollocks. If by Ultra Leftsist you mean people like me well people like me unequivocally condemn the military action of Israeli state but we condemn also Hamas. We express solidarity for the workers of Palestine but we certainly do not give succour to bourgeois nationalism.



The notion that resistance might actually be in the class interests of Palestinian workers, and that these workers have not been brainwashed by Hamas, but are actually capable of making rational judgments based on their knowledge of how Israeli imperialism operates on the ground never enters into the considerations of the ultra-lefts, because they insist on adopting a patronizing and misinformed view of workers in nations that are being oppressed by imperialism. ..

You seem to be adopting a rather patronising and misinformed view of us "ultra-leftists" or whatever it is you want to call us communists. Look ,nobody is suggesting that if an Israeli tank comes rumbling over in your direction that you offer no resistance. Of course Palestinians should resist. This is not the issue. What is the issue is the terms in which such resistance is couched and the manner in which it is carried out. Frankly, quite apart from their obnoxious nationalistic and capitalist stance, Hamas did themselves - and more to the point, palestinian workers - no favour by firig missles into Israeli territory. It was insanely counterproductive and only conducive to upping the antes in a spiral of tit for tat retaliation. I am certainly not defending the Israeli state. I am frankly not interested in the question of who started it all. The question is what can the working class do now. Engaging in so called national liberation struggle is not goling to help one bit and in terms of the geopolitical realities of the region today is only going to condemn them to the miserable plight they find themselves in. They need to disengage from nationalism just as Israeli workers need to disengage from nationalism just as workers everywhere need to disengage from nationalism if we are ever to achieve working class solidarity through the world. Nationalism is a mugs game and more to the point , a capitalist game



PS. "Vanguardist" is not a word.
.[/quote]

It certainly is in the revolutionary circles I move in!

[Die Neue Zeit]

There have been two pages of debate since I've last written here, so obviously I'm not going to answer everything. I'll just say this: all the liberal-sentimental platitudes of those who refuse to oppose imperialism, covered by radical rhetoric, have been dealt with quite crushingly already. New users think that by repeating the same arguments used before in a more shrill and hysteric manner will make those who argue for support for Palestine against imperialist attacks (and yes, for Saudi Arabia too, and for any oppressed nation regardless of its regime) forget that we have actually already answered everything, but received no answers from them.

I have personally shown that both Lenin and Trotsky, as well as Marx and Engels, have given support to national liberation struggles despite their leaderships

"Recognising internationalism in words alone and watering it down in practice with petty-bourgeois nationalism and pacifism is a common phenomenon not only among the parties of the Second International but also among those that have left the International. This phenomenon is frequently seen even in those parties that now call themselves Communist..."

"The fight against this evil, against the most deeply-rooted petty-bourgeois nationalist prejudices, which appear in every possible form such as racial hatred, the baiting of minorities and anti-semitism, must be brought all the more into the foreground the more burning becomes the question of transforming the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national dictatorship (i.e. a dictatorship existing only in one country and incapable of pursuing an independent international policy) into an international dictatorship of the proletariat in at least a few advanced countries which is capable of exercising a decisive influence on international politics)..."

"What petty-bourgeois nationalism means by internationalism is the mere recognition of the equality of nations (irrespective of the fact that such recognition is granted in words alone) which leaves national egoism untouched. Proletarian internationalism on the other hand demands: 1) the subordination of the interests of the proletarian struggle of the one country to the interests of this struggle on a world scale, and 2) the ability and the readiness on the part of the nation that carries out its victory over the bourgeoisie to make the greatest national sacrifice in order to overthrow international capitalism."

"A struggle is necessary against Panislamism, the Panasiatic movement and similar currents which try to tie the liberation struggle against European and American imperialism to the strengthening of the power of Turkish and Japanese imperialism, the nobility, the big landlords, the clergy, etc."

Care to rebutt Lenin above, YS?

[peaccenicked]

(irrespective of the fact that such recognition is granted in words alone)
The devil is in the detail.


the ability and the readiness on the part of the nation that carries out its victory over the bourgeoisie to make the greatest national sacrifice in order to overthrow international capitalism."


Here we have uninterrupted revolution explained. The Bolshevik invasion of Poland (for some the "Soviet" invasion of Afghanistan") The Cuban contingent in Angola.
In realtime politics Lenin was a poineer but he too decided that it was better to hold the fort than spread the revolution. While saying that socialism in one country could not ultimately be victorious. Even the greatest national sacrifice had its limits.
The word retreat was not equated with defeat but holding the fort.

Here is Lenin,

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie WITHOUT ALL ITS PREJUDICES [italics in original], without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.--to imagine all this is to REPUDIATE SOCIAL REVOLUTION. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view would vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a "putsch".


A struggle is necessary against Panislamism, the Panasiatic movement and similar currents which try to tie the liberation struggle against European and American imperialism to the strengthening of the power of Turkish and Japanese imperialism, the nobility, the big landlords, the clergy, etc."

This is ridiculous in to-days context. We have had over 20 years of unipolar power from the US. By far the biggest bully in the playground. The enemy of each national democratic revolution. Petty bourgeois nationalism With all its prejudices is a revolutionary force in such conditions.

Does it mean we stop fighting these prejudices. NO!
Yet if we merely repudiate the reactionary character of revolutionary forces we
repudiate social revolution itself.

[benhur]

I have personally shown that both Lenin and Trotsky, as well as Marx and Engels, have given support to national liberation struggles despite their leaderships,

Marx praised British rule in India, saying the country needed development which only the British imperialists can give. Read the essay 'The British rule in India.' From this, one can apply the same logic to Israel-Palestine situation, replacing Britain with Israel and P with I, or even with respect to US-Iraq, or US-Afghanistan/China-Tibet etc. etc. Would that be acceptable to you, since Marx himself has adopted this approach?

[robbo203]

The devil is in the detail.

This is ridiculous in to-days context. We have had over 20 years of unipolar power from the US. By far the biggest bully in the playground. The enemy of each national democratic revolution. Petty bourgeois nationalism With all its prejudices is a revolutionary force in such conditions.

Does it mean we stop fighting these prejudices. NO!
Yet if we merely repudiate the reactionary character of revolutionary forces we
repudiate social revolution itself.


No this is what is ridiculous! How on earth does petty bourgeois nationalism constitute a revolutionary force today in a world in which capitalism is fully established as a global system of society? In the mid 19th century you might just about have got away with this statement. Today is is utterly absurd and utterly reactionary.

So according to you we should strive tirelessly to dislodge the top bully in the playground that has ruled the roost without rivals for 20 years. To what end, pray? Get rid of one bully and you will simply make it easier for another to take its place. That is the nature if global capitalist order. Every nation state is an imperialist power potentially or in fact - even the little ones.

Capitalism is a fully globalised system. Capital more and more is multinational. The whole oppressor nation-oppressed nation paradigm which is theoretically incoherent and empirically suspect anyway is utterly redundant.

Global capitalism is the real culprit , not imperialism. Those on the left who witter on dogmatically about the need to "fight imperialism" actually work to obscure this truth. And in supporting so called national liberation struggles, they unwittingly or otherwise, suggest a communality of interests between workers and capitalists who supposedly comprise these nations.

This is what highlights the reactionary conservative and bourgeois nature of much that passes for the left these days

[Yehuda Stern]

Care to rebutt Lenin above, YS?

I don't need to, as it takes a person who can't understand anything to still think I advocate political support for the Islamist movements.


Marx praised British rule in India, saying the country needed development which only the British imperialists can give. Read the essay 'The British rule in India.' From this, one can apply the same logic to Israel-Palestine situation, replacing Britain with Israel and P with I, or even with respect to US-Iraq, or US-Afghanistan/China-Tibet etc. etc. Would that be acceptable to you, since Marx himself has adopted this approach?

This, unsurprisingly, is a gross exaggeration with a side of absolute lie. Marx and Engels never 'praised' British rule in India; they excepted it, unhappily, as an inevitable stage in the developing of class society. They did see the full half of the glass in that imperialism helped create a working class in India; however, the IDF's slaughtering of Palestinians and its constant attempt to expel more and more of them does the exact opposite, i.e. makes sure that there can't even be a real capitalist society to speak of in Palestine. The full extent of its reactionary impact is that it in fact attempts to preserve the most backwards and feudal aspects of Arab society (that it doesn't annihilate outright).

Once again, you have understood nothing of the content and used the shallow form to try and use Marx to justify a reactionary position.

[Cumannach]

Care to rebutt Lenin above, YS?

Nothing you quoted contradicts anything Yehuda said. Are these disjointed quotations the best you can come up with? You base your whole political line on these, which don't even address the question at hand anyway? Talk about clutching at straws.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I merely butted in to challenge the non-"Republican Socialist" position of YS specifically.

[peaccenicked]

I intend to demonstrate in this paper that Trotsky's law of uneven and combined development has the potential to grasp the world historical development as a whole. Building on Hegel's and Marx's conception of the world, Trotsky fully adheres to a monistic and dynamic conception of a historical totality in which parts are internally related.Heir of this tradition, Trotsky also subscribes to a dialectical approach by which he intends to account of a changing and interactive historical world. Thus, Trotsky's “law� does not simply have to be understood in relation to Marx's conception of history, but also as a complement to it.My main argument lies in a comprehension of Trotsky's "law"� through an extension of Veblen's notion of "borrowing" in which the fundamental relational nature of human social relations is reasserted as ontological to social life itself. Ultimately, I argue that social development itself is uneven and combined.The uneven and combined development can therefore be conceived as permeating the social texture as a continuum of social relations going from the local to the international, the latter representing the crystallization - at a certain point in time - of socially uneven and geopolitically combined developments.
from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/1/0/0/p251006_index.html

Globalization is an indication of combined development, petty bourgeois nationalism is an indication of uneven development.
Globalization in as far as it is US imperialist hegemony. Why has Halliburton have contracts in Iraq? Why does Soros owm an aliminum mine in Serbia? It is the most reactionary fetter on the productive forces of the world. Petty bourgeois nationalism
with guns is not that petty. They are pointing these guns at the defenders of our main enemy. That is a revolutionary act whether you like it or not.
This is nothing to do with intersubjectivity:the enemy of my enemy being my friend.
This is an objective reality.
When did unipolar imperialism transform into global capitalism?
When did national oppression become old hat. Why were they using DU weapons in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza?

This is where the "dogma lies".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch08.htm

Right at the heart of Marxist revoutionary thought, with the fenian reactionary christians.

Nations have not disappeared. History is not the servant of communism.
It will take centuries for man to 'master' nature and solve the national question fully.
It cannot be buried with the pious wish that US imperialism has done the business for us.
This is more than ridiculous utopianism, it is astonishingly stupid.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Am I the only one who finds these sort of back-and-forth arguments purely academic? Unless one is actually sending money or arms to them, all this talk about "supporting Hamas" is pure bluster and meaningless cheastbeating.

Hamas does not give a damn what lefties outside think; they have their own agenda which is quite seperate from any of ours.

[Comrade_XRD]

Yes, Hamas did attack civilians, like under 10 to be specific (the true number of deaths is 13, but some were military casualties). But Israel....Israel killed about 1,300 of which over 40% WERE WOMEN AND CHILDREN. Hamas' cheap homemade rockets that don't function properly half the time are simply incomparable to the F16s, tanks, and WHITE PHOSPHORUS used by Israel. The arms are clearly very uneven. Hamas is indeed guilty of attacking civilians (or attempting to at least). But they are in NO way equivalent to the State of Israel in guilt. The fact that Israel started the whole fiasco is damning enough.

[manic expression]

Am I the only one who finds these sort of back-and-forth arguments purely academic? Unless one is actually sending money or arms to them, all this talk about "supporting Hamas" is pure bluster and meaningless cheastbeating.

Hamas does not give a damn what lefties outside think; they have their own agenda which is quite seperate from any of ours.

I understand how it could seem platonic in a way, but this issue does become an actual problem if you're trying to hold a demonstration or action against Zionism. Should it promote the cause of the Palestinian resistance, denounce it or ignore it entirely? This is something almost every organizer has to answer (and if all goes well, I'll have to do just that within a month). Further, it defines how one stands in relation to just about every other struggle for national liberation. Also, in a related case of the Irish liberation struggle, plenty of Irish-Americans sent money to the IRA throughout the conflict, and probably would again if it ever came to that. So yes, I think this does have practical consequences.

On edit: last year, my group put out a pamphlet denouncing Israel on its 60th anniversary. It included a few prominent phrases about the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people, which caused quite a sensation (if I do say so myself). The fact that I side with the anti-imperialists who support the struggle of the Palestinian people in this argument came to color a great deal of that pamphlet's content (and for many of our opponents, it was the most shocking point we made).

[Yehuda Stern]

Unless one is actually sending money or arms to them, all this talk about "supporting Hamas" is pure bluster and meaningless cheastbeating.

This a discussion forum. The practical implementation of positions doesn't really belong here. Of course there's a point in discussing a position, even if at a given moment a group has no way of really acting on it.



Hamas does not give a damn what lefties outside think; they have their own agenda which is quite seperate from any of ours.

Fine by me; I don't really care what Hamas thinks about me or what their agenda is. I only care that they are currently leading the Palestinian struggle, and that we support this struggle regardless of their leadership.

[x359594]

...I don't really care what Hamas thinks about me or what their agenda is. I only care that they are currently leading the Palestinian struggle, and that we support this struggle regardless of their leadership.

"That we support this struggle regardless of their leadership." Exactly right.

[Marxist]

The leadership should be taken by PFLP and DFLP , not by a bunch of reactonary religious totalitarians

[Yehuda Stern]

Yeah, you're right. Instead of "reactionary religious totalitarians," the leadership should be taken by "reactionary nationalist pro-imperialists." Brilliant strategy!

[Marxist]

What´s pro-imperialist about them?

[Yehuda Stern]

Their support, although less enthusiastic than that of Fatah, for the two state solution, above all else.

[Marxist]

They support two state system???

[Yehuda Stern]

Hesitantly at first, and certainly less enthusiastically than Fatah, like I said, but yes, they do.