Genuine people's movements in the Middle-East [Archive]

View Full Version : Genuine people's movements in the Middle-East

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 20:54

h0m0revolutionary

4th January 2010, 21:00

I didn't even have to look down that list for five seconds to find an example of you spouting shit you seemingly know nothing about.

OneVoice. So they're progressive yeah?

The same OneVoice who call for a de-militarised Palestine but not Israel. The same OneVoice which boasts members of Likud, Shas and the National Religious Party on it's advisory board?

(excellent review of OneVoice and their overt zionism here (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10497.shtml))

Sam_b

4th January 2010, 21:02

21 OneVoice, a project of the Peaceworks Foundation

OneVoice can get fucked. Pro-Israel 'mutual harm' nonsense, one which plays down Israeli war crimes and is rumoured to be funded by Likhud. These sleazeballs have never, fortunately, made great inroads on our university campus due to the students occupation and support for the Palestinian people.

This is an interesting article: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10497.shtml

4th January 2010, 21:02

You have literally no clue what you are talking about CM, you should quit pretending.

Sam_b

4th January 2010, 21:03

Wow h0m0, I see we were both on the mark with this one, and the same article no less :lol:

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 21:45

Sam_b

4th January 2010, 21:52

However, you said all these groups 'genuinely seem to care'. Did you nor bother to read what you wrote?

If you know nothing of them, don't list them as good guys, simple as.

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 22:00

However, you said all these groups 'genuinely seem to care'. Did you nor bother to read what you wrote?

If you know nothing of them, don't list them as good guys, simple as.

How many of these groups have blown people up lately? That's where the difference is. I doubt whether they are all in agreement with each other, as I say.... which part of "I would appreciate critique", don't you understand?

The Vegan Marxist

4th January 2010, 22:12

Instead of supporting Nazi funded or extemist theocratic terrorist groups why is it that the following groups who genuinely seem to care about the people on ground level never seem to get a mention? I don't have information on all of them so I would appreciate critique, but two movements have my support- Combatants for Peace, very moving stuff, along with Ta'ayush. Also TULIP is worth discussion. Why is it that we can't work along these lines instead of the line of the molotov?

1 Valley of Peace initiative
2 Olives of Peace
3 Aix Group
4 Friends of the Earth Middle East
5 Mejdi
6 Tolerance Monument
7 Peres Center for Peace
8 McGill Middle East Program for Civil Society and Peace Building
9 Community Advocate Mentor Program - Middle East
10 Peace Settlers
11 Hand in Hand Bilingual Arab-Jewish Schools
12 Ta'ayush Arab-Jewish Partnership
13 Neve Shalom-Wahat Al-Salam (Oasis of Peace)
14 Hewar Center for Peace and Development
15 Hamidrasha Jewish-Arab Beit Midrash
16 Ir Shalem co-existence program
17 The West-Eastern Divan
18 Seeds of Peace
19 Middle East Education through Technology (MEET)
20 Givat Haviva's Jewish-Arab Center for Peace
21 OneVoice, a project of the Peaceworks Foundation
22 "Seeking Peace, Pursuing Justice"
23 The Abraham Fund
24 Comedy For Peace
25 Brit Tzedek v'Shalom
26 Brit Shalom/Tahalof Essalam
27 Israeli-Palestinian Confederation
28 Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization
29 Combatants for Peace
30 Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
31 Jews for Justice for Palestinians
32 ICAHD Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
33 Sadaka Reut
34 The Institute for Circlework

Valley of Peace initiative: One of the things they are wanting to happen is a private sector development of a $3 billion, 166 km-long (103-mile) canal system along the Arava. I think the environmentalists have it right when the better solution to what this development is trying to implement would merely be to rehabilitate the Jordan river to save the Dead Sea & bring less disruption.

Olives of Peace: I don't see how these people could possibly be taken serious when all they're really doing is bringing in cooperation through the use of selling products. I'd rather want revolutionary groups to come together to eliminate capitalism, not continue it through the advancement in the market.

Aix Group: I hope you realize that the people who are part of the Aix group are also members of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, & the European Union. I wouldn't really want these people on my side. They are more of my enemy, rather than friend.

Mejdi: Another example of a pro-capitalist for-profit organization who are claiming to bring 'real' justice. From what I've seen on other organizations that are capitalized & operate under a for-profit system, I can't say they will do much that will be helpful, & pretty much will be harmful in the long run.

That's it for now, but I think you need to really start looking into these groups a lot better before you post them up. I understand you wanted critique, which is what I'm giving you, & I'm not attacking you, so I hope you take the advice & start doing some research tonight on these groups that you've posted about.

Sam_b

4th January 2010, 22:19

How many of these groups have blown people up lately? That's where the difference is. I doubt whether they are all in agreement with each other, as I say.... which part of "I would appreciate critique", don't you understand?

That logic is absurd. Does that mean you don't support people's resistance in Afghanistan, as they are attacking imperialist troops?

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 22:49

That logic is absurd. Does that mean you don't support people's resistance in Afghanistan, as they are attacking imperialist troops?

What people's resistance in Afghanistan? The Taliban who think girls who go to school are whores who should be stoned? I love the spin you people put on stuff "people's" resistance my foot.

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 22:53

That's it for now, but I think you need to really start looking into these groups a lot better before you post them up. I understand you wanted critique, which is what I'm giving you, & I'm not attacking you, so I hope you take the advice & start doing some research tonight on these groups that you've posted about.

Thanks... that's what I was looking for- a reasonable response. Like I said, I doubt whether these groups would all see eye to eye and the ones I named in the opening thread were the ones that struck me. There are also other groups that are religiously based too, but nevertheless if people are non-violent and trying to promote peace it must be a good thing in some ways. It's like the UN, the UN may have it's flaws but if I were in a refugee camp somewhere I would rather they were around than not- if you get my point.

I think it's important to evaluate these groups carefully. Perhaps we could produce a list or ranking of them somehow according to leftist criteria?

Saorsa

4th January 2010, 23:12

ComradeMan, the majority of the CC repeatedly voted to restrict you. Frankly I don't think we should even bother engaging with him and his pro-Zionist crap

bricolage

4th January 2010, 23:26

It's like the UN, the UN may have it's flaws but if I were in a refugee camp somewhere I would rather they were around than not- if you get my point.

If I were in a refugee camp I'd probably rather there were people trying to fuck up the people that put me in the refugee camp.

NaxalbariZindabad

4th January 2010, 23:48

Here's a better list:

* Maoist Communist Party (Turkey/Northern Kurdistan)
* Communist Party of Turkey-Spark
* Marxist Leninist Communist Party (Turkey/Northern Kurdistan)
* Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
* Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
* Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan)
* Arab Platform in Berlin

I guarantee none of these are "Nazi funded or extemist theocratic terrorist groups".
In fact, this is the member list of the Anti-Imperialist Struggle Coordination of the Middle East (http://ascomet.awardspace.com).

The Vegan Marxist

5th January 2010, 00:41

Sam_b

5th January 2010, 02:31

What people's resistance in Afghanistan?

I think this proves the point about your ignorance, and indeed your chauvenism.

Hiero

5th January 2010, 04:24

What people's resistance in Afghanistan? The Taliban who think girls who go to school are whores who should be stoned? I love the spin you people put on stuff "people's" resistance my foot.

It think you believe alot of spin in the media that portrays the middle east and South Asia as completly backward and who will blow up anyone or beat woman for the sake of it.

Devrim

5th January 2010, 10:05

It think you believe alot of spin in the media that portrays the middle east and South Asia as completly backward and who will blow up anyone or beat woman for the sake of it.

Just because the media portrays it that way doesn't mean that their are not people in countries such as Afghanistan who think that girls who go to school are whores.

Devrim

Devrim

5th January 2010, 10:08

10 Peace Settlers

I particularly like this one. What 'peace' do the settlers want? Another piece of Land?

Devrim

ComradeMan

5th January 2010, 11:40

I think this proves the point about your ignorance, and indeed your chauvenism.

I think that comment proves your point about your blind polarisation and ignorance of the East. Your so-called people's resistance is none other than a reactionary group of drug barons who were once in the pay of the West against the USSR and who upset their old masters and ended up fighting. In fact more innocent civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by the Taliban than by the Allied Forces according to Human Rights Watch. They particularly like to plant explosive devices in Girls Schools apparantly.
^ In Afghanistan, Taliban kills more civilians than US (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0731/p06s15-wosc.html), 2009-07-31, Ben Arnoldy
http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/09july31-UNAMA-HUMAN-RIGHTS-CIVILIAN-CASUALTIES-Mid-Year-2009-Bulletin.pdf

Now whatever my opinion on the war in Afghanistan and I am against wars in principal, it does not change the fact that your so-called "people's" resistance is just yet another reactionary group of killers and yet again the victims are some poor innocent people who didn't have much to start with and now have even less.

BobKKKindle$

5th January 2010, 12:06

reactionary group of drug baronsAn interesting allegation in light of the fact that the Taliban government was one of the only Afghan governments in history to successfully combat the opium trade when they banned the drug in 2000, when Afghanistan was still under their control, with the ban being enforced through the arrest of village elders and mullahs who refused to comply. If there's anyone in Afghanistan who can legitimately be accused of being drug barons it's the warlords who were and still are part of the Northern Alliance, which actively assisted the US in its invasion of the country, and is just as bad if not worse than the Taliban when it comes to the treatment of women and prospects for reconstruction and development. These forces are also known to have carried out vicious attacks against Pashtun communities, who have historically served as an important source of support for the Taliban, and are also major backers of the resistance movement today.

In fact more innocent civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by the Taliban than by the Allied Forces according to Human Rights WatchThe implication of this kind of assertion seems to be that socialists should back the occupation and not the resistance movement, which is not a position that any socialist should be taking, although in truth it is a position that people such as yourself are likely to agree with, in light of your support for imperialism in Palestine and throughout the world. The fact of the matter is that HRW is the ideological arm of the US government when it comes to justifying intervention in the affairs of other countries and presenting the US and its allies as forces for good in the world, and before you cite organizations like that again, you would do well to look at some of the criticisms that have been directed against HRW from the left. A particular point of criticism that demonstrates where HRW's loyalties lie and where they get their funding from is their coverage of the resistance movement in Lebanon, as they have alleged that Hezbollah was responsible for more war crimes than the IDF during the war in that country in 2006 and have also argued that whilst Israel does not take enough precautions when waging war against other countries (the clear implication being that Israel does not want to target civilian but occasionally makes mistakes, leading to deaths, and that they should therefore be criticized for not having sufficient precautions, as oppossed to going out of their way to cause loss of civilian life) Hezbollah is guilty of deliberating seeking to kill Israel's civilian population - not only flawed on factual grounds but also evidence of a pro-Zionist ideological agenda.

The truth of the matter if we look at Afghanistan is that the Taliban controls 75% of the territory, depending on what studies you look at, and the occupation's authority is limited to major towns and transport networks in spite of their persistent attempts to increase their presence. A political movement (keeping in mind that the Taliban is not a homogeneous force and is also not the entirety of the resistance in Afghanistan) does not find itself in this position unless it has some measure of popular support, and in light of how reactionary the Taliban is, this in itself is pretty strong evidence of how detrimental the occupation has been in terms of the security and wellbeing of the Afghan people, especially the Afghan working class and peasantry. I want the resistance to win in Afghanistan because the occupation is not doing anything for the people of the country and the expulsion of the occupiers will give a boost to the class struggle both within the countries that were part of the invasion and in Afghanistan itself, not to mention the regional powers that are increasingly being pulled into the conflict, such as Pakistan and Iran. I want the resistance to win in spite of the fact that I recognize that the Taliban is the most important component of the resistance and that they will probably become an even more powerful political force if imperialism is defeated. It is not our place to deny the legitimacy of the Afghan people's resistance struggle just because we do not agree with the ideas and organizations that are being used to wage that struggle.

ComradeMan

5th January 2010, 12:16

An interesting allegation in light of the fact that the Taliban government was one of the only Afghan governments in history to successfully combat the opium trade when they banned the drug in 2000,

They didn't combat anything they took it over and there have been allegations that there major partners in crime were/are the Corsican Mafia.

The implication of this kind of assertion seems to be that socialists should back the occupation and not the resistance movement, which is not a position that any socialist should be taking

No, the implication is that any socialist should deplore the whole damn situation without taking sides with any and every oppurtunist group that arises just because they are fighitng the "capitalists". The old my enemy's enemy is my friend which time and again has been proven to be a bad tactic.

I want the resistance to win in spite of the fact that I recognize that the Taliban is the most important component of the resistance and that they will probably become an even more powerful political force if imperialism is defeated. It is not our place to deny the legitimacy of the Afghan people's resistance struggle just because we do not agree with the ideas and organizations that are being used to wage that struggle

Well that is one of the most frighteningly idiotic statements I've read in a while. I don't care how reactionary and vile a movement is as long as they fight my enemy and therefore I don't give a stuff about the innocent lives lost. Most of the Afghans refugees I met would probably have a word or two to say about that. This explains why people like you will always lose, you are prepared to sacrifice your principles for short term gains without thinking about the future.

Just supposing your dream came true and the resistance won in Afghanistan and the Taliban took over, where would that leave your bloody worker's state and socialist ideals? In tatters.

To support reactionary groups in the name of revolution is dangerous and counter-revolutionary.

As for your comments about Zionism, shove them in your gefilte fisch.

BobKKKindle$

5th January 2010, 12:39

They didn't combat anything they took it over and there have been allegations that there major partners in crime were/are the Corsican Mafia.The facts speak for themselves - anyone who does a basic level of research or who knows anything about the recent history of Afghanistan will acknowledge that the Taliban did ban the production and sale of opium, that the ban was enforced, and that one of the major consequences of the occupation apart from the deaths of thousands of civilians is that Afghanistan has once again become the world's biggest supplier of heroin, due to the area of arable land devoted to opium production having rapidly increased and a large segment of the population getting addicted to the drug. This is evidence of how destructive the war has been, but personally I don't see why questions like whether the Taliban are drug lords or not or whether they have ties to the Corsican mafia are relevant to the fundamental issue of what should be done about the occupation, and what will best serve the interests of workers in Afghanistan and throughout the world. The only progressive position is to call for absolute and immediate withdrawal, and in practice that means we should support all efforts to expel the occupation forces, given that they are not likely to leave without some kind of pressure from the Afghan population.

You talk about how the Taliban are allegedly worse than the occupation (having failed to respond to my critique of HRW) and you criticize me for wanting socialism to be crushed when the Taliban come to power. I acknowledge that the victory of the resistance will bring the Taliban to power if for a short time only. In that sense I'm honest. But why don't you tell us - do you back the demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of troops, knowing that the Taliban will probably come to power or at least enhance its position as a result? Or do you want the occupation to remain in order to "protect" Afghanistan from the Taliban?

without taking sides with any and every oppurtunist group that arises just because they are fighitng the "capitalists".This isn't actually an argument, it's just an assertion that we shouldn't take sides, ever, when we're dealing with anything but a socialist revolution, without any explanation of why this should be the case. I do take the side of the resistance in Afghanistan insofar as I hope that resistance forces will be able to inflict a military defeat on imperialism and force the occupation troops to leave the country as soon as possible, as I recognize that, whilst being under the ideological and organizational leadership of reactionary forces, specifically a segment of the petty-bourgeoisie, the resistance is conducted by the Afghan workers and peasants, and represents their aspirations. The fact of the matter is that in every case where an oppressed nation has fallen under the territorial control of an imperialist power like Israel or the US, the workers of the oppressed nation have fought back, not because they've been deceived into thinking that they have some kind of moral obligation towards the nation, or that they have the same interests of the bourgeoisie, who always side with and benefit from imperialism in any case - the reason workers in this situation fight back is because the presence of an imperialist power represents the most intense source of pain and oppression from the viewpoint of the working class in countries such as Afghanistan, so that, as long as the occupation remains in place, the effect is to turn the energies of workers away from the prospect of socialist revolution. You are effectively saying that Afghan workers shouldn't resist because anti-imperialist resistance isn't the same as socialist revolution, in complete ignorance of the fact that revolutions do not just drop out of the sky but are the product of a long series of victories, each of which raises the confidence of the working class, exposes the nature of capitalism more fully, and brings workers closer to the point where revolution does become a meaningful possibility. The equivalent of your position is to say that trade-union struggles are worthless because a pay rise isn't the same as socialism, or that struggles to obtain bourgeois democracy are worthless because you want to abolish the state. In Afghanistan and countries like it, the expulsion of the occupation is one of the victories that will necessarily occur before socialist revolution and that is why it is so important for socialists to support all efforts that are intended to bring about the expulsion of the occupiers.

To support reactionary groups in the name of revolution is dangerous and counter-revolutionary. An odd thing to come from a supporter of Israel.

As a more general point, can you learn how to use the quote function?

BobKKKindle$

5th January 2010, 12:52

I particularly like this one. What 'peace' do the settlers want? Another piece of Land?

Devrim

I prefer the "Peres Center for Peace". The "Peres" in the name is Shimon Peres.

Sam_b

5th January 2010, 13:50

Now whatever my opinion on the war in Afghanistan and I am against wars in principal, it does not change the fact that your so-called "people's" resistance is just yet another reactionary group of killers and yet again the victims are some poor innocent people who didn't have much to start with and now have even less

The thing that makes you the biggest chauvenist, and I think many comrade will realise this, is that you stigmatise and generalise every single resistance movement, peoples (apart from Israel, of course), organisations, and actions as being backward or reactionary. Of course, you say this from the relative comfort of your home. probably in the UK or Western Europe somewhere, and denounce people whose only choice is often resistance against imperialism.

Let's look at what you say here then: apparently I'm too ignorant to agknowledge that every person fighting the US/UK forces in Afghanistan is a reactionary drug baron or Taliban. This is blatantly nonsense: you conveniently seem to forget a lot of the resistance movements coming from the communist and worker movements in Afghanistan, predominantly in the cities, as well as isolated rural movements with farmers wanting to protect their villages from occupying forces with a proven track record of torture, rape and murder. You seem to fall for every last bit of imperialist propoganda which spouts that every single person taking up arms in resistance is Taliban or an 'Islamist'.

Now, its well documented on these forums that several members, such as myself and Bobkindles, give unconditional critical support to what we see as legitimate resistance movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah. We have argued these points extensively on here. Now, you are free to argue against this view like many of our members have: for example, h0m0revolutionary who has posted in this thread criticises our viewpoint, and gives his arguments which of course like ours hold certain degrees o weight. h0m0revolutionary is not a reactionary or chauvenist for holding this view, not in the slightest. But then again h0m0revolutionary does not have this morbid obsession with arguing that every person who dare takes up arms to fight imperialism is a drug baron, Taliban insurgent, holocaust denier, stooge for some respective corrupt government, whereas in your posts you have. This is what makes your comments chauvenistic, and thats just the beginning.

ComradeMan

5th January 2010, 14:48

To Bob and Sam

If you think the Taliban's enforcement of the opium ban (which used tactics such as summary beheading of poor farmers) was a sign of some kind of social spirit on the part of the Taliban then you have fallen for the oldest mafia trick in the book.

The net result of the Taliban's opium ban was not the complete eradication of the opium poppy but the successful and rather capitalistic increase in the price of dry opium to a recod of $700 a kilo on Sept 10, 2001, from which time it has had an average of between $350-400 a kilo. During the 1990's the average price was around $50 peaking at $100 in 2000. A classic mafioso trick, wipe out the opposition and competition, force the price up and reap the financial rewards. Since losing "power" in Afghanistan, the Taliban seem to have reversed their position and a no using opium funds for their cause, opium funds of course at a high price which they helped to ensure whilst they were in power.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact thar the ISAF forces are actually a coalition and as of January 2009 its troops number around 55,100from 26 NATO, 10 partner and 2 non-NATO / non-partner countries,including contributions from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Poland and most members of the European Union and NATO also including Australia, New Zealand, Azerbaijan (95% Muslim), Turkey and Singapore.

As for the tedious bringing back everything to Israel all the time. More and more strawman arguments. Who ever said I supported the Irgun? I have stated my case time and time again that my personal stance is in favour of the one-state solution. If that makes me a Zionist, well, then you better write and tell Muammar al-Gaddafi and the People's Republic of China that they are Zionists too.

By the way take a look at the site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) I think you will find out what there opinion is on the Taliban and Jihadist without taking a pro-US stance either. But you don't support these people, you don't even probably know about them or bother to find out, no, it's better to just support any mad bastard who picks up a kalashnikov and decides to fight the "imperialists" despite his or her own credentials.

Now, its well documented on these forums that several members, such as myself and Bobkindles, give unconditional critical support to what we see as legitimate resistance movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

People who give unconditional support are fools.

Hamas- an Islamist Theocratic terror movement that wants to set up an exclusively Islamic state and has been accused of many atrocities against its "own" people as well as killing striking workers and injuring others. I'm sure Marx would approve.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Nationalist_and_National_Liberation/Hamas/5497

Hezbollah
Shia Islamists whose Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah accuses Jews of deliberately spreading HIV amongst other things, whose television network broadcast propaganda about Jewish world domination conspiracies and deny the holocaust. Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman, Marcelo Martinez Burgos, and their "staff of some 45 people"said that Hezbollah and their contacts in Iran were responsible for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural centre in Argentina, in which "[e]ighty-five people were killed and more than 200 others injured."

"Argentine prosecutors: Arrest former Iranian president." Jerusalem Post, 2006-10-26, "Prosecutor Alberto Nisman told a news conference that the decision to attack the center 'was undertaken in 1993 by the highest authorities of the then-government of Iran.' He said the actual attack was entrusted to the Lebanon-based group Hezbollah."

From your last comments I'm afraid I have to deduce that you are what Stalin described as being "useful idiots".

BobKKKindle$

5th January 2010, 15:25

If you think the Taliban's enforcement of the opium banAs I stated in my last post, whether or not the Taliban support opium production should not be the central issue of this thread or any discussion relating to the impact of the occupation and the positions that socialists should be adopting on Afghanistan and imperialism. I simply pointed out that the Taliban previously banned the sale of opium because of your assertion that the Taliban are nothing but a bunch of drug merchants, which is a way of dismissing a complex situation - and also a way of ignoring the fact that the most significant increases in opium production and consumption have occurred after the invasion, and are a direct result of the effects the occupation has had on the lives of Afghanistan's citizens and rural producers. I also noted that the Northern Alliance were and still are heavily involved in the trade whilst also supporting ethnic pogroms against Pashtuns - an issue that you have not engaged with because you want to make it seem as if the Taliban are the greatest threat as far as the Afghan people are concerned and that it's fine to support the occupation as long as they keep the Taliban away....which they don't in any case because the Taliban already control most of Afghanistan, the presence of the occupation being limited to cities and major transport links, and have a significant base of popular support, in spite of their reactionary politics. In addition to these issues that relate specifically to Afghanistan, you have failed to engage with the more general point of why it's important to support anti-imperialist struggles from the viewpoint of the working class - I spoke about the effect that these struggles have on the nature of class conflict and also pointed out that revolutions come about as a consequence of the working class becoming more confident, and the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie being shattered, and yet, in spite of me having explained my position to you, you haven't dealt with any of the issues that lie at the heart of the national question.

The most important issue that you have not addressed is withdrawal. I'll ask you this key question again - do you support the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan, with the knowledge that this will probably enhance the position of the Taliban? This is not a difficult question in that it requires a yes or no answer (it's also simple in that the answer should be clear for anyone who has a realistic appraisal of the situation in Afghanistan and cares about the lives and prospects of Afghanistan's workers and peasants) but the way you answer it will say a lot about your politics.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact thar the ISAF forces are actually a coalition The fact that Afghanistan is being occupied by a large number of countries (this being true only in a formal sense, given that the majority of troops are from the US and Britain) doesn't change the imperialist nature of the invasion or the need for socialists to call for the immediate withdrawal of all forces. The invasion was driven by the geopolitical and economic demands of the world's leading imperialist powers (or at least a section of the imperialist bloc) and the existence of the occupation supports the dominant position of those same powers in the Middle East and Central Asia. I actually find it troubling that you even view Afghanistan being occupied by a coalition as opposed to just one country a relevant issue to bring up in this debate. We can only assume that, in your eyes, the imperialist domination of Iraq is lessened by the fact that Iraq was also invaded and is currently being occupied by a coalition of imperialist governments, not just one of them.

have stated my case time and time again that my personal stance is in favour of the one-state solutionYet you regard organizations like the Peres Center for Peace as progressive bodies whilst condemning the resistance of the Palestinian people as illegitimate and driven solely by Islamists, whose religion is, in your view, uncivilized and universally reactionary. This view blatantly ignores the fact that Palestinians have been subject to numerous forms of injustice during Israel's existence and that these justices being reversed (for example, the return of return being acknowledged) requires that any notion of a state designed specifically for the interests of Jewish people (i.e. any kind of Israel) be eliminated. Do forgive us if your alleged support for a one-state solution is not taken as evidence of any genuine commitment to Palestinian liberation.

By the way take a look at the site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)I've never said that I support Taliban resistance exclusively. I've stated on several occasions now that I support all efforts to expel the occupation and that I do not think that socialists should impose conditions on the people of Afghanistan in terms of the organizations and methods through which they conduct their resistance - that is for them to decide as people who have being living under an imperialist occupation for just less than a decade, our job as socialists living in imperialist countries is to acknowledge that any kind of resistance is both legitimate and progressive, and to call for the withdrawal of all the troops that our governments and their coalition partners have placed in Afghanistan. Furthermore, a large part of Sam_b's post was dedicated to showing that the Taliban are not the only forces fighting against occupation in Afghanistan, in fact he drew your attention to the worker movements that are also part of the resistance effort, and the role they play in the cities. RAWA is also part of the resistance, although characterizing them as progressive is problematic - they call for the restoration of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah, and they refuse to acknowledge any differences between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban.

to fight the "imperialists" despite his or her own credentials. Why is "imperialists" in quotes? Do you not recognize the occupation of Afghanistan as imperialism, and the governments that are complicit in it as imperialist states?

Hamas....

A position of unconditional support is not the same as uncritical support, and nor does it mean that our support is political, i.e. that we agree ideologically with all of the organizations that are waging anti-imperialist struggles. I am oppose to Hamas banning strikes, but I still recognize that the resistance waged by Hamas is progressive, and that the Palestinian people should be the ones to choose how they wage their resistance, and what kinds of resistance are legitimate, not socialists living in imperialist countries. It is also significant that you criticize Hamas for banning strikes and Hezbollah for anti-semitism, both fair criticisms, and yet you do not criticize these groups for the partial and inconsistent way in which they fight for liberation. For example, Hamas has proposed that a Palestinian state be established on the basis of Israel's pre-1967 borders, which basically accepts a two-state "solution" and leaves issues such as the right of return untouched. This if anything should be the main point of criticism for anti-imperialists but you do not acknowledge it because you are not interested in the liberation struggle that is being waged in opposition to Zionism.,

Sam_b

5th January 2010, 15:27

Nice to see you engaged with the majority of my argument, which, incidentally, wasn't about Hamas or Hezbollah at all, and more to do with explaining to you about why you are a chauvenist.

Also, please learn to use the quote function, it makes things extremely annoying otherwise.

ComradeMan

5th January 2010, 15:40

World Politics is not a game of chess where you have two opponents with their respective pieces. It's more like a game of chess in which all the pieces are independent and act accordingly, some more powerful than others some weaker but all of them part of the game. making and breaking alliances, stabbing each other in the back and looking after their own littles squares. There are no simple yes-no answers and there are no simple ways out. The trick is to not play the game.
This kind of polarised yes-no, good guy-bad-guy, or perhaps bad-guy-worse guy kind of thinking is something that really irritates me about the ways of thinking in the Anglo-sphere. Perhaps it's the result of US/UK style government with "one" opposition, perhaps the result of too many Western films, but don't try and lull me into taking a position that isn't mine.
Like I said before, the trick is not to play the game at all.

BobKKKindle$

5th January 2010, 15:47

don't try and lull me into taking a position that isn't mine. I'm actually just trying to get an idea of what your position is. I'm going to ask you this question again and you should be aware that anyone who reads this thread will be aware of how much you've tried to avoid engaging with what should be the dividing line for socialists on all occupations. Do you support the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan? If you don't support this demand then, assuming that the position of the Afghan proletariat and prospects for revolution in Afghanistan are your primary concerns, you presumably believe that it is better for Afghanistan to remain under occupation, because the Taliban is more reactionary than the occupying forces, and revolution will be more likely under the occupation - although as I've stated before a large part of the country is under the control of the Taliban anyway, so the choice is not so much between an occupation government and a Taliban government as it is between the occupation forces being expelled and those forces remaining in place and continuing to exercise control over a small part of the country whilst destroying the lives of Afghanistan's population. If you do support this demand then you must acknowledge that the Taliban are not the main evil, and that the occupation being expelled as a consequence of their resistance would be progressive...but you don't appear to believe that based on what you've said thus far.

Let's see what answer, if any, CM gives. And no, don't repeat your previous nonsense about abstaining from world politics - socialists do not abstain from any kind of politics, we engage with every issue, and in each and every case that means pushing for the interests of people who are exploited and oppressed under capitalism. In the context of a war, that means demanding an end to the war, through immediate and unconditional withdrawal, alongside support for all resistance struggles against imperialism.

Which side are you on, boys?

ComradeMan

5th January 2010, 21:03

Bob great words and wonderful rhetoric, but when you wake up tomorrow and smell the coffee in the real world you'll also see that there need to be a few things going for a society before any social change can take place that is meaningful. As much as I regret a foreign army of occupation's presence in any country what has been started has been started and an immediate withdrawal would be a disaster for the ordinary people. It's a bit of a no win situation. I would like to see more funds and resources poured into Afghanistan to build up the country and provide basics of medical care and education to start with and also a slow but systematic withdrawal of troops, a strong international and UN presence and also with a decent Afghani government in place. Tough as it is, you know damn fine what would happen to innocent people should the troops vanish tomorrow. You can't even speak of "one" Afghani people for all the tribal and ethnic divisions in the country, I am not going to "vote for a bloodbath" as I am more interested in what happens to the people on the ground. But then, why would you care? You never seem to put them into your equations whatsoever, making bold and sweeping statements on paper is all well and good but what about the actual human cost?

So there you go, you can start calling me a militarist imperialist now--- have a field day.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

5th January 2010, 21:11

The best People's movement in the Middle East is the PFLP.

black_tambourine

5th January 2010, 23:40

So there you go, you can start calling me a militarist imperialist now--- have a field day.

Since you are a priori assuming that things will fall apart in a non-Western country without Western tutelage, the term is pretty apt. As would be "racist".

[braces for sanctimonious "OMG SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE LEFT-HANDED BISEXUAL SHI'A PASHTUNS WITH CEREBRAL PALSY SO NATURALLY I AM THE LEAST BIGOTED CREATURE EVER TO TUMBLE OUT THE MOMMY-HOLE ON TO GOD'S EARTH" response]

6th January 2010, 00:40

I would like to see more funds and resources poured into Afghanistan to build up the country and provide basics of medical care and education to start with and also a slow but systematic withdrawal of troops, a strong international and UN presence and also with a decent Afghani government in place.
..
So there you go, you can start calling me a militarist imperialist now--- have a field day.

Best anarchist ever! Btw, if you want a bigger UN presence then how can you want withdrawal of troops? Sorry, it just seems like you were kicked in the head by a horse.

NaxalbariZindabad

6th January 2010, 09:35

Do what you want comrades, but sometimes it's not worth spending too much times answering such sketchy arguments. You never know who you're arguing with. Some people on anti-capitalist websites are actually reactionaries. Hell some of them are even paid propagandists! ( see http://www.infowars.com/israel-recruits-army-of-bloggers-to-troll-anti-war-websites )

Wanted Man

6th January 2010, 09:39

It's worth noting that this list is simply copied from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projects_working_for_peace_among_Arabs_and_Israeli s

Kind of dumb to copy such a list and give this thread the title "genuine people's movements" when, by your own admission, you don't have information on all of them (translation: you don't know about any of them with a few exceptions).

genstrike

6th January 2010, 10:06

I don't know about a lot of these organizations on the list, but TULIP seems to me only to exist to oppose the BDS movement within trade unions.

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 15:39

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

Yeah sure, the PFLP who were bankrolled by Swiss capitalists and Nazis.... sure, interesting how people pick at things selectively. We denounce a whole movement because it may or may not have connections to Likud for example (not that I am a Likudist) but when someone else points out that our group was funded and aided by Nazis and capitalists that doesn't cout. Pitiful.

Is

You obviously don't understand what is meant by UN presence. There is a difference between coalition troops fighting a war and a strong UN peacekeeping and humanitarian force to safeguard the lives of ordinary people. But then you'll just probably denounce them all as "twats" and shit like that.

Wanted Man

I did copy that list because it was rather long and the only list I could find in one place, I quite clearly stated that I did not have information on all the groups and asked for critique in order to learn more. I also highlighted the groups that caught my attention. What's the problem? I also notice that everyone is quick to point out the groups they disapprove of, but no one mentions any of the groups that may have made a positive contribution.

I suppose warmongers need enemies though don't they?

mykittyhasaboner

6th January 2010, 16:00

Now, its well documented on these forums that several members, such as myself and Bobkindles, give unconditional critical support to what we see as legitimate resistance movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

People who give unconditional support are fools. How can you give "unconditional" and yet "critical" support?

This is really pedantic. Either you recognize the right of people's movements and resistance fighters to oppose American or Israeli imperialism, or you don't. It's kind of simple. It's not a matter of who is "more legitimate" of a people's movement--what matters is who is putting in the work and the risk of fighting occupiers. Using such logic, support for groups like Hamas and the Taliban is somewhat reasonable because they form the only coherent resistance to occupation.

Hamas- an Islamist Theocratic terror movement:laugh: To say the least this kind of labeling is unneccasary. Trying to get an emotional response by using words like "terror movement" in place of actual materialist analysis isn't the best way to go imo.

that wants to set up an exclusively Islamic state and has been accused of many atrocities against its "own" people as well as killing striking workers and injuring others. I'm sure Marx would approve.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/key...ion/Hamas/5497 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Nationalist_and_National_Liberation/Hamas/5497)
Why are we looking for Marx's approval? This a strange argument.

Anyways, no one is saying Hamas is the revolutionary vanguard for the Palestinian proletariat, or something of the sort. There are many aspects of Hamas, like putting down strikes, it's theocratic ideology, etc that cannot be 'supported' by any socialist--but they along with other groups fight against the IDF. When this is there role, ie. resisting Israeli imperialism when soldiers are going around using Palestenians as human sheilds, then we can give nothing but support.

Hezbollah
Shia Islamists whose Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah accuses Jews of deliberately spreading HIV amongst other things, whose television network broadcast propaganda about Jewish world domination conspiracies and deny the holocaust. Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman, Marcelo Martinez Burgos, and their "staff of some 45 people"said that Hezbollah and their contacts in Iran were responsible for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural centre in Argentina, in which "[e]ighty-five people were killed and more than 200 others injured."

"Argentine prosecutors: Arrest former Iranian president." Jerusalem Post, 2006-10-26, "Prosecutor Alberto Nisman told a news conference that the decision to attack the center 'was undertaken in 1993 by the highest authorities of the then-government of Iran.' He said the actual attack was entrusted to the Lebanon-based group Hezbollah."
So let me get this straight. In order for any group to be supported in the Middle East, when they are fighting imperialists, they have to do so on your terms?

I mean we all know that bombings and cowardly attacks are bad; but lets put it in perspective. How far would you go if your family was killed and your nation being repeatedly attacked in the most brutal manner resulting in death of countless civillians? Certainly Hezbollah or any other group wouldn't want to do such things, but they are driven to by their perceived necessity. I'm sorry but I'm not going to argue in support of these tactics like you probably want someone to. All I am saying is your trying to shift a lot of blame on these groups as if they have no shame or respect, are not subject to appauling and brutal conditions like war and occupation, and seemingly will not support resitance unless they are leading a socialist revolution.

From your last comments I'm afraid I have to deduce that you are what Stalin described as being "useful idiots". Wasn't it Lenin who used the phrase? I think so.

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 16:41

FSL

6th January 2010, 17:00

Re Useful idiots, no one can agree who said it, I found it attributed to Lenin, it was in currency during the Stallinist period however. Regardless of whoever said it, these people are useful idiots.

I mean we all know that bombings and cowardly attacks are bad; but lets put it in perspective. How far would you go if your family was killed and your nation being repeatedly attacked in the most brutal manner resulting in death of countless civillians?

That's exactly the kind of argument the Zionists use in Israel to justify attacks on Palestinian targets.

Odd, since it's the palestinians who are suffering agression. It's not like they are occupying someone else's country, right?

Regarding critical/unconditional support and whether it's good or bad etc. This is what I can agree with (and one of my favourite articles at that). http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/06/05.htm
Best of luck to the genuine people's movements in the middle east who oppose imperialism.

There is evidently a different spirit among the Chinese now to what they showed in the war of 1840 to '42. Then, the people were quiet; they left the Emperor's soldiers to fight the invaders, and submitted after a defeat with Eastern fatalism to the power of the enemy. But now, at least in the southern provinces, to which the contest has so far been confined, the mass of the people take an active, nay, a fanatical part in the struggle against the foreigners. They poison the bread of the European community at Hong Kong by wholesale, and with the coolest premeditation. (A few loaves have been sent to Liebig for examination. He found large quantities of arsenic pervading all parts of them, showing that it had already been worked into the dough. The dose, however, was so strong that it must have acted as an emetic, and thereby counteracted the effects of the poison). They go with hidden arms on board trading steamers, and, when on the journey, massacre the crew and European passengers and seize the boat.
They kidnap and kill every foreigner within their reach. The very coolies emigrating to foreign countries rise in mutiny, and as if by concert, on board every emigrant ship, and fight for its possession, and, rather than surrender, go down to the bottom with it, or perish in its flames. Even out of China, the Chinese colonists, the most submissive and meek of subjects hitherto, conspire and suddenly rise in nightly insurrection, as at Sarawak; or, as at Singapore, are held down by main force and vigilance only. The piratical policy of the British Government has caused this universal outbreak of all Chinese against all foreigners, and marked it as a war of extermination.
What is an army to do against a people resorting to such means of warfare? Where, how far, is it to penetrate into the enemy's country, how to maintain itself there? Civilizationmongers who throw hot shells on a defenceless city and add rape to murder, may call the system cowardly, barbarous, atrocious; but what matters it to the Chinese if it be only successful? Since the British treat them as barbarians, they cannot deny to them the full benefit of their barbarism. If their kidnappings, surprises, midnight massacres are what we call cowardly, the civilization-mongers should not forget that according to their own showing they could not stand against European means of destruction with their ordinary means of warfare.
In short, instead of moralizing on the horrible atrocities of the Chinese, as the chivalrous English press does, we had better recognize that this is a war pro aris et focis, a popular war for the maintenance of Chinese nationality, with all its overbearing prejudice, stupidity, learned ignorance and pedantic barbarism if you like, but yet a popular war. And in a popular war the means used by the insurgent nation cannot be measured by the commonly recognized rules of regular warfare, nor by any other abstract standard, but by the degree of civilization only attained by that insurgent nation.

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 17:38

What about the 600,000 Jews who fled for their lives from Arab aggression? You don't mention that. I am not justifying aggression of any kind against anyone but you have to stop being one-sided and look at the bigger picture.

The British treatment of the Chinese in the opium wars period is atrocious, but in the end the Empress did a deal with the British Empire and they got Hong Kong.

Ghandi adopted peaceful means and achieved what he set out to do.

black_tambourine

6th January 2010, 18:11

What about the 600,000 Jews who fled for their lives from Arab aggression?

With which the Palestinians had fuck all to do. But I guess you think all "Arabs" are the same.

The British treatment of the Chinese in the opium wars period is atrocious, but in the end the Empress did a deal with the British Empire and they got Hong Kong.

So...what?

Ghandi adopted peaceful means and achieved what he set out to do.

A system wherein more people died from preventable, poverty-related causes every decade than the body counts of Mao and Stalin combined? Is there a single liberal sacred cow you don't get moist over?

khad

6th January 2010, 22:09

By the way take a look at the site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) I think you will find out what there opinion is on the Taliban and Jihadist without taking a pro-US stance either. But you don't support these people, you don't even probably know about them or bother to find out, no, it's better to just support any mad bastard who picks up a kalashnikov and decides to fight the "imperialists" despite his or her own credentials.
RAWA is opportunistic monarchist trash, just like you.

RAWA has hundreds of members inside the country who are still carrying out their work running literacy classes and offering basic healthcare services.

But since the borders were closed there has been no news of them.

Until recently, people made contact by relaying messages via people coming across the border, but this is no longer possible.

Behjat believes that if the United States leads an attack on Afghanistan it will be "another catastrophe for the country".

But she is hopeful that the current situation will eventually lead to a change of regime.

Afghanistan's exiled king, Mohammed Zahir Shah
RAWA sees the exiled king as the best hope of uniting the country

In the meantime, RAWA is looking into ways of expanding its membership to include the vast numbers of supporters who would like to help, but are not able to make the sacrifices required of the current membership.

Behjat believes most Afghans share RAWA's basic aims: "We want a peaceful country where people can express their beliefs and feelings without fear."

RAWA has stated that it would support the return of the exiled King Zahir Shah.

His 40 year rule which ended in 1973 "though unremarkable, was one in which at least the people did not suffer", says Behjat. http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp0716.html

Much was made of the fact that in the conference in Bonn last November and December, which established a provisional government in Afghanistan, two women were included in the cabinet. These were Sima Samar, a Hazzara and member of the Hazzara-based Hezb-I-Wahdat (Party of Islamic Unity), who became minister of women's affairs and a deputy prime minister; and Suhaila Siddiqi, a former member of the Parcham faction of the pro-Soviet People's Democratic Party that had ruled Afghanistan from 1978 to 1992. Siddiqi had held high rank under the Najibullah regime, then served as chief surgeon in a Kabul hospital under the Northern Alliance, and had even been allowed to practice under the Taliban.

The RAWA (whom I respect, as an organization serious about confronting fundamentalism and promoting feminism) denounced both of these women for their histories and political associations. Nonetheless, their presence in the 30-person interim administration was used to put a female-friendly face on what was in essence another collection of Northern Alliance warlords. But that face faded during the Loya Jirga in June. The majority of delegates, including the small female component, wanted the former king, Zahir Shah, to serve as head of state rather than Hamzid Karzai, who is seen as a puppet of the Americans and pawn of the warlords. US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad effectively vetoed that proposal, shooing in Karzai, the U.S.'s man, while thugs in the warlords' service moved in to silence and marginalize opposition, including any posed by women. Sima Samar, nominated to continue as minister of women's affairs, was sufficiently intimidated by death threats that she turned down the position in favor of a lesser human rights post. (She had already stated, June 11, "This is a rubber stamp. Everything has already been decided by the powerful ones.") The Jirga concluded June 19 (following a walkout of half the delegates two days earlier, in protest of foreign manipulation of the proceedings, and warlord intimidation), without the appointment of a new Minister of Women's Affairs.

Hiero

7th January 2010, 01:12

Just because the media portrays it that way doesn't mean that their are not people in countries such as Afghanistan who think that girls who go to school are whores.

Devrim

Yeah but my point was "for the sake of it". This popular belief that they do it simply because they are stupid. For instance I do know of the existance of the Taliban, and that says enough that do know that the Taliban have reactonary thoughts about going girls going to school.

But the original poster put it into context that it is either these liberals or apparantly "Nazi funded or extemist theocratic terrorist groups".

I never contested that their weren't reactionary elements in the huge region s/he has outlined, but the portrayal of the region as a desolate wasteland of brute reactionaries leads to support of organisations without a platform that considers class issues in favour of working classes. As if the best we (whoever that is) can do is support crappy little liberal groups.

Devrim

7th January 2010, 09:08

Yeah but my point was "for the sake of it". This popular belief that they do it simply because they are stupid. For instance I do know of the existance of the Taliban, and that says enough that do know that the Taliban have reactonary thoughts about going girls going to school.

It isn't just the Taliban though, and it isn't just that they have reactionary thoughts. In this country, Turkey, supporters of the very moderate Islamic parties have gone out and beaten women wearing 'short' skirts in the street to celebrate election victories. I'm sure that I could find a catalogue of horrors perpetuated against women (quite possibly produced by the CIA), which demonstrates that the Taliban actually do more than just have 'thoughts'.

But the original poster put it into context that it is either these liberals or apparantly "Nazi funded or extemist theocratic terrorist groups".

And many of these liberals are direct apologists for imperialism.

I never contested that their weren't reactionary elements in the huge region s/he has outlined, but the portrayal of the region as a desolate wasteland of brute reactionaries leads to support of organisations without a platform that considers class issues in favour of working classes. As if the best we (whoever that is) can do is support crappy little liberal groups.

I find this leftist need to have somebody to support really strange. I don't support either 'crappy little liberal (pro-imperialist) groups or Islamic reactionaries. In countries where there are (what we consider to be) communists our organisation supports them, but by that I mean really materially supports them, not just says 'oh I support this or that group'. For us it is part of the task of beginning to build a world party.

The Middle East is a massive region with imense variations across it. It ranges from countries such as Iran, which has a higher percentage of industrial workers than, for example, the UK, to countries such as Afghanistan, which still has 80% of the economically active population engaged in agriculture.

To be honest there isn't a very large working class in Afghanistan, and I wouldn't expect much in the way of class struggle there. That doesn't mean there is no struggle at all, but it is one of the very few countries in the world completely dominated by the peasantry.

Devrim

Homo Songun

8th January 2010, 22:04

ComradeMan, instead of fretting over opium production in Afghanistan, you need to come to terms with the Kool-Aid production in Washington.

ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR

10th January 2010, 02:57

An example of a genuine middle-eastern people's movement is the Iraqi Resistance. The Iraqi are currently trying to obtain national liberation. Inevitably they will will because they have the support of the masses. After kicking the aggressors out, the battle will proceed once again between the iraqi oppressed and oppressor classes. But in the meantime comrades, we must give our absolute support to the Iraqi Resistance.

blake 3:17

10th January 2010, 06:04

The Taliban did reduce opium output because of US financial support for it. What would be much better would be a decriminalization and demilitarization of the opium trade and that Afghani farmers be paid fair market rates for crude or refined opium.

blake 3:17

10th January 2010, 06:07

How far would you go if your family was killed and your nation being repeatedly attacked in the most brutal manner resulting in death of countless civillians?

That's exactly the kind of argument the Zionists use in Israel to justify attacks on Palestinian targets.

Bye.