Zionist Regime in Tel-Aviv sides with Gaddafi against the popular revolution.

[neosyndic]

x

[Savage]

perhaps Israel is now anti-imperialist?

[neosyndic]

x

[Devrim]

:D It is intersting to witness how the Zionists are looking at objective reality while the ostentible anti-imperialist, panafricanist left is still debating the issue of whether Gaddafi is a "friend of the people" or not.

I think that Israel's position is essentially 'better the devil you know'.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

:D It is intersting to witness how the Zionists are looking at objective reality while the ostentible anti-imperialist, panafricanist left is still debating the issue of whether Gaddafi is a "friend of the people" or not.

A large part of the left still has an autistically dogmatic attitude to foreign policy. It seems like the left are as dependent on opportunistic alliances as the right, but the left has some need to always explain their positions programmatically for the great echo chamber, whereas the right are just pumping on with whatever they do.

[Metacomet]

Tel-Aviv isn't the capital of Israel fyi

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If this is true, it should torpedo this bullcrap about how the rebels are evil imperialist agents trying to overthrow the brave anti-imperialist Muammar Gaddafi.

[Nolan]

Israel is anti-imperialist. The US and Britain are antisemitic and want the British mandate of Palestine back.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ignoring the Zionists for a moment, was reading that link to the third worldists, and I didn't think it was all that bad an article until I read the following paragraph:

“The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated. Libyans now earn more per capita than the British. The disparity in annual incomes… is smaller than in most countries. Libya’s wealth has been fairly spread throughout society. Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services. New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard. All Libyans have a house or a flat, a car and most have televisions, video recorders and telephones. Compared with most citizens of the Third World countries, and with many in the First World, Libyans have it very good indeed.”1

This is the problem with some on the left. All about the outcomes. They are willing to overlook, defend and further dictatorship as long as the country has an equitable spread of wealth, free education and free healthcare.

So short sighted. So undemocratic. So silly.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Granma-its funny too if you consider how uncritically they take Gadafi's propaganda about the "high living standards" in libya. It's clear that there is a huge wealth disparity between the east and west of the country.

And this "wonderful free health care" it talks about? Well, its only is great if you ignore the possibility of getting AIDS from the shit hygiene standards. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_trial_in_Libya)

Those kinds of people are so myopic ... libya says that they make a ton of money per capita, they call themselves "socialist", and they release some dodgy numbers to "prove" it, and people just buy the state's statistics while ignoring stories about just how poor the standards are for that health care, those flats, the education, etc.

[DaringMehring]

Those kinds of people are so myopic ... libya says that they make a ton of money per capita, they call themselves "socialist", and they release some dodgy numbers to "prove" it, and people just buy the state's statistics while ignoring stories about just how poor the standards are for that health care, those flats, the education, etc.

Yeah, according to various calculations (IMF, World Bank, CIA Factbook), Britain is well above Libya in terms of GDP/capita, whether nominal or in purchasing power parity.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm sorry to be skeptical about this, but how in the hell does this constitute itself as "evidence"? If we were to replace "Israel" with "Cuba", I'm sure plenty of us who support Cuba would be outraged with this bullshit posting that supposedly shows Israel is supporting Gaddafi.

But let's say it's true. Does this mean that those leading the rebels, and their "transitional council" are then "anti-imperialists? You know, since you are stating Gaddafi's side is of imperialism, not the rebels' side. Has anyone on this forum even questioned who is of the council and who's leading the rebels - the council that the majority of imperialist nations have recognized as the new legitimate govt. of Libya?

Let's look at a great article that appeared yesterday, showing who were within this council, which consist of pro-imperialist former members of Gaddafi's govt. and bourgeois figures as well:


Leaders Of The Libyan Opposition Emerge
by ALAN GREENBLATT
March 14, 2011

Groups fighting against the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi last month formed an umbrella organization known now as the Interim Transitional National Council (http://ntclibya.org/english/). The goal was both to reduce factional differences and to put a spotlight on some recognizable leaders.

"The main aim of the national council is to have a political face ... for the revolution," Abdel-Hafiz Ghoqa, a spokesman for the group, told reporters in announcing its formation.

Even as the rebellion is suffering some military losses, it's enjoying some diplomatic victories. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Thursday that she will meet with members of the council during her upcoming visit to the region.

She said that the State Department has ended its interactions with the Libyan government's embassy in Washington. But the U.S. has not recognized the rebel group as the legitimate government of Libya.

On Thursday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy did offer the council formal recognition — the first such action taken by a major European county and a surprise to France's neighbors.

Here are brief biographies of some of the key members of the council, which met for the first time on March 5:

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil

The chairman of the national council is also de facto Public Enemy No. 1. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi put a half-million-dinar reward (roughly $410,000) on his head March 9. That's for his capture, while information leading to his arrest is good for 200,000 dinars.

Abdul-Jalil had previously served as Gadhafi's justice minister but resigned to protest "excessive use of force" against demostrators. After defecting, he claimed that Gadhafi had personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people in 1988.

Abdel-Hafiz Ghoqa

The council's vice chairman is a representative for Benghazi, and one of its spokesmen. He is a human-rights lawyer and former president of the Libyan bar. Ghoqa was arrested on Feb. 19 but was released a few days later — and initially became spokesman of an earlier protest group.

Ali Al Issawi

A former minister for economy, trade and investment, he was serving as Libya's ambassador to India but stepped down last month out of objection to "the violence against civilians by the government and mercenaries," as he told the Indian Express. He had twice attempted to step down from his ministerial position in 2008 owing to disagreements with the prime minister but was persuaded to stay, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable. He now serves on the national Ccouncil's steering committee and shares responsibility for foreign affairs. He was part of the delegation that received France's formal recognition of the council on March 10.

Mahmood Jibril

Another member of the national council's steering committee with responsibility for foreign affairs, Jibril also heads the council's effort to streamline decision-making. Jibril accompanied Issawi to the Paris meeting with Sarkozy. He was educated and taught at the University of Pittsburgh, receiving his doctorate and writing numerous books on strategic planning and decision-making. Before the uprising, he was involved in a democracy promotion project and had served as head of the country's National Planning Council and National Economic Development Board. A leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from 2010 describes him as "well-connected within the regime" but also as someone who was seeking to promote more open relations with the U.S.

Omar Al Hariri

The former general is now the council's steering committee member in charge of military affairs. He took part in the military coup that brought Gadhafi to power in 1969 and was close enough to the country's leader to have taught him to drive. But in 1975, Hariri took part in a coup plot against Gadhafi. He was sentenced to death, but Gadhafi commuted his sentence in 1990 to house arrest in Tobruk, a city in the east, where he remained until the current rebellion. His history has given him credibility and stature among the rebellion's military factions.

Fathi Turbel

The council's representative for youth is also a member of the city council of Benghazi. In recent years, he has worked as a lawyer for victims of the 1996 Abu Selim prison massacre, in which more than 1,200 prisoners were killed by Gadhafi's forces. His arrest at a Feb. 15 demonstration by the family members of the victims of the 1996 massacre helped spark Libya's protest. People who gathered outside a police station to demand his release were reportedly fired on, triggering anti-government protests that grew in size and intensity and soon spread to other cities. He was released in an attempt to buy calm that didn't take.

Abdel-Fattah Younis

Although sometimes rumored to be part of the National Council, he has not been formally identified as such. But Younis is a prominent opposition figure regardless. A former commander of the powerful Thunderbolt commando brigade, Younis has been described by Al-Jazeera as "former Gadhafi No. 2." He was Gadhafi's interior minister but switched sides after being sent to Benghazi to crush protests on Feb. 17. Younis was among the army officers who joined Gadhafi's 1969 coup. He is now using his military contacts to organize the rebels' defense against pro-Gadhafi attacks.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/15/134452475/leaders-of-the-libyan-opposition-emerge

Now, let's look at another article that appeared yesterday as well, that also went deep into the council that's leading the rebel opposition:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rebel-council-seeks-to-transform-libya/2011/03/14/ABdDPtV_story.html


"the rebels have created a government-in-waiting known as the National Transitional Council. [...] The group includes activists who have fought Gaddafi for decades and recent defectors. At times, the national council doesn’t speak with a unified voice; day-to-day operations seem disorganized, even precarious."

In other words, we have a "transitional council" that's being recognized by the international imperialists, who contain groups of people "who have fought Gaddafi for decades," meaning during Gaddafi's anti-imperialist, revolutionary leadership over Libya, not just during the last 10 years of neo-liberal reforms.


"Other national council members include a U.S.-educated political science professor, a well-known youth leader and a relative of Libya’s former monarch who spent 31 years in prison for allegedly participating in a coup attempt against Gaddafi. The council has also tapped experienced diplomats who defected to represent them in Western and Arab capitals.

Mahmoud Jibril, a U.S.-educated professor and former head of Libya’s National Economic Development Board, is the rebel leadership’s foreign affairs representative and is expected to meet with Clinton in Cairo. A 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks and written by the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, described Jibril as “a serious interlocutor who ‘gets’ the U.S. perspective.”

So, here we can see quite clearly that prominent members of the "transitional council" are Western-educated professors, in favor of "the U.S. perspective", and relatives of former King Idris and the ousted royal family.


"They envision a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, largely because there was a parliament under King Idriss, whom Gaddafi deposed in a bloodless coup in 1969."

And so, we then see here that the "transitional council" is seeking for a parliamentary govt., all because former King Idris' govt. was parliamentary.


"Sensitive to comments by Gaddafi that they were linked to al-Qaeda and wanted to create an Islamic emirate, rebel officials stressed that while Islam would be the official religion, a post-Gaddafi government would be secular."

Reason I'm quoting this is, although I'm in favor of a secular-govt. anytime, anywhere, I point this out because the vast majority of the rebels are tribal Islamic's. Why would they be in favor of a secular govt.? To me this points out where the true power lies, and it's not with "the people" as a whole, but rather those of the "transitional council".

Though, I will hand it to them on this:


"Still, it’s unlikely that a post-Gaddafi government will support U.S. policies in the Middle East. Members of the national council said they were opposed to U.S. policies in Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I would be in favor of such views, but I'm skeptical to how much support these views garner. Remember, the article takes notice at the very beginning that the council "doesn’t speak with a unified voice; day-to-day operations seem disorganized, even precarious." So it's unclear as to who is in favor and who is in opposition to these particular views.

Either way, what I present are clear red alarms needing to be addressed in order to better understand who these rebels really are and where they stand on the political spectrum. And overall, I'm not liking what I'm seeing.

[Savage]

Does this mean that those leading the rebels, and their "transitional council" are then "anti-imperialists? You know, since you are stating Gaddafi's side is of imperialism, not the rebels' side.
Those of us that don't consider Gaddafi anti-imperialist also don't consider 'national liberation' movements to be anti-imperialist, nor do we believe that there is always one side of an imperialist war that is inherently anti-imperialist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Those of us that don't consider Gaddafi anti-imperialist also don't consider 'national liberation' movements to be anti-imperialist, nor do we believe that there is always one side of an imperialist war that is inherently anti-imperialist.

Then let me word it in this way for those of you who don't see them as "anti-imperialists". Are they worth supporting, given the clear fact that they are holding imperialist interests here?

[Savage]

Then let me word it in this way for those of you who don't see them as "anti-imperialists". Are they worth supporting, given the clear fact that they are holding imperialist interests here?
We don't support them, the fact that they aren't (and also can't be) anti-imperialist is part of the reason that we don't support either these sort of protesters or the Libyan regime.

[The Vegan Marxist]

We don't support them, the fact that they aren't (and also can't be) anti-imperialist is part of the reason that we don't support either these sort of protesters or the Libyan regime.

Interesting position. Though, I doubt everyone, especially on this forum, holds your point of view.

[Devrim]

Interesting position. Though, I doubt everyone, especially on this forum, holds your point of view.

I know that everybody on here doesn't support our point of view. The vast majority of the left takes side in every war between different pro-imperialist factions.


Then let me word it in this way for those of you who don't see them as "anti-imperialists". Are they worth supporting, given the clear fact that they are holding imperialist interests here?

Why should it have to be worth much? It is not like you 'supporting' them actually means anything.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why should it have to be worth much? It is not like you 'supporting' them actually means anything.

I don't support the opposition, nor Gaddafi either when it comes to how they would like to rule Libya. My position is of anti-imperialism and right to self-determination. Since there's a civil war in Libya, meaning a war between the people, then it's up to either side to win total control. But both must do so without the aiding of imperialists, which the rebel opposition are trying to do so. It's quite clear that the council representing the rebels contain bourgeois pro-imperialists and family members of the ousted royal family. The fact that a good portion of RevLeft support them is troubling in my opinion.

[neosyndic]

x

[The Vegan Marxist]

^No, support should go to self-determination. I believe it's too early to make a decision on who to support, because we don't have the complete, honest story. Self-determination grants us to not "choose a side", but support that, who ever wins this civil war, it was done through no imperialist control, rather the control of the people (for whichever side of people it was).

[neosyndic]

x

[Dimentio]

the global left should not extend support to a regime (composed mostly of ex-Gaddafi regime functionaries) that has been illegally recognised by Sarkozy (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/liby-m11.shtml). the French State has no business recognising anyone, as a matter of fact. this intromision was an insult to the Lybian revolution; because it is the people of Lybia who have the exclusive right to extend legitimacy to their government. the fact that the western political class and media have extended their support to the National Council hijack should serve to define perspectives. there is a difference between the popular grass roots opposition to the Gaddafi regime (whose revolt was provoked by the social impact of western inspired neo-liberal structural adjustment policies), and the so-called ''National Council''.

In Madagascar, there was a transition of power which was supported by large segments of the population in 2009. It has still not been recognised abroad...

[pranabjyoti]

Ignoring the Zionists for a moment, was reading that link to the third worldists, and I didn't think it was all that bad an article until I read the following paragraph:

“The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated. Libyans now earn more per capita than the British. The disparity in annual incomes… is smaller than in most countries. Libya’s wealth has been fairly spread throughout society. Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services. New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard. All Libyans have a house or a flat, a car and most have televisions, video recorders and telephones. Compared with most citizens of the Third World countries, and with many in the First World, Libyans have it very good indeed.”1

This is the problem with some on the left. All about the outcomes. They are willing to overlook, defend and further dictatorship as long as the country has an equitable spread of wealth, free education and free healthcare.

So short sighted. So undemocratic. So silly.
That democracy is the real democracy, that can give its own people the above mentioned facilities and services. Who the fuck cares about democracy where income disparity is rising everyday and most people went to sleep with empty stomach.
I am curious how many of those "anti-dictatorship" leftists will speak the same words when they will face the same problems in their own "democracy".

[neosyndic]

x

[Crux]

I'm sorry to be skeptical about this, but how in the hell does this constitute itself as "evidence"? If we were to replace "Israel" with "Cuba", I'm sure plenty of us who support Cuba would be outraged with this bullshit posting that supposedly shows Israel is supporting Gaddafi.

But let's say it's true. Does this mean that those leading the rebels, and their "transitional council" are then "anti-imperialists? You know, since you are stating Gaddafi's side is of imperialism, not the rebels' side. Has anyone on this forum even questioned who is of the council and who's leading the rebels - the council that the majority of imperialist nations have recognized as the new legitimate govt. of Libya?

Let's look at a great article that appeared yesterday, showing who were within this council, which consist of pro-imperialist former members of Gaddafi's govt. and bourgeois figures as well:



Now, let's look at another article that appeared yesterday as well, that also went deep into the council that's leading the rebel opposition:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rebel-council-seeks-to-transform-libya/2011/03/14/ABdDPtV_story.html



In other words, we have a "transitional council" that's being recognized by the international imperialists, who contain groups of people "who have fought Gaddafi for decades," meaning during Gaddafi's anti-imperialist, revolutionary leadership over Libya, not just during the last 10 years of neo-liberal reforms.



So, here we can see quite clearly that prominent members of the "transitional council" are Western-educated professors, in favor of "the U.S. perspective", and relatives of former King Idris and the ousted royal family.



And so, we then see here that the "transitional council" is seeking for a parliamentary govt., all because former King Idris' govt. was parliamentary.



Reason I'm quoting this is, although I'm in favor of a secular-govt. anytime, anywhere, I point this out because the vast majority of the rebels are tribal Islamic's. Why would they be in favor of a secular govt.? To me this points out where the true power lies, and it's not with "the people" as a whole, but rather those of the "transitional council".

Though, I will hand it to them on this:



I would be in favor of such views, but I'm skeptical to how much support these views garner. Remember, the article takes notice at the very beginning that the council "doesn’t speak with a unified voice; day-to-day operations seem disorganized, even precarious." So it's unclear as to who is in favor and who is in opposition to these particular views.

Either way, what I present are clear red alarms needing to be addressed in order to better understand who these rebels really are and where they stand on the political spectrum. And overall, I'm not liking what I'm seeing.
Nice diversion. Also it's fucking ridicolous to believe a muslim-majority population cannot fight for secular goals, even border-line racist and implyes you must have kept your eyes quite tightly shut for the past few moths during the uprisings that have been.

[Devrim]

^No, support should go to self-determination. I believe it's too early to make a decision on who to support, because we don't have the complete, honest story. Self-determination grants us to not "choose a side", but support that, who ever wins this civil war, it was done through no imperialist control, rather the control of the people (for whichever side of people it was).

Why do you have to feel that you have to support either side? Neither side has anything at all to offer the working class except dragging them into a blood civil war.

'Self-determination' in this day and age is virtually impossible. Al bourgeois tendencies tend to end up lining up alongside different imperialist powers.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Nice diversion. Also it's fucking ridicolous to believe a muslim-majority population cannot fight for secular goals, even border-line racist and implyes you must have kept your eyes quite tightly shut for the past few moths during the uprisings that have been.

I don't think that I am a 'boarder line racist' against muslims. I think that the re has been class involvement in the movements in Tunisia and Egypt, but in the movement in Libya a class perspective does seem conspicuous by its absence.

Just because a Muslim majority population can fight for class interests it doesn't by default mean that every Muslim dominated population always will.

Devrim

[Crux]

I don't think that I am a 'boarder line racist' against muslims. I think that the re has been class involvement in the movements in Tunisia and Egypt, but in the movement in Libya a class perspective does seem conspicuous by its absence.

Just because a Muslim majority population can fight for class interests it doesn't by default mean that every Muslim dominated population always will.

Devrim
What I am adressing is this:
I point this out because the vast majority of the rebels are tribal Islamic's. Why would they be in favor of a secular govt.? To me this points out where the true power lies, and it's not with "the people" as a whole, but rather those of the "transitional council".
I might have been hyperbolic, but to be be blunt, no secular demands is not by default proof of "outside meddling" even if the majority of the population is religiously affiliated.

[Devrim]

What I am adressing is this:
I might have been hyperbolic, but to be be blunt, no secular demands is not by default proof of "outside meddling" even if the majority of the population is religiously affiliated.

No its not, but Islamicism has an influence in Libya. There are plenty of people there raising the monarchist flag, and the King, let us remember, was the head of an Islamic brotherhood, as is his heir today. The monarchy was always an explicitly religiously based thing.

Of course tribalism also plays a role in Libya. It doesn't of course just mean the Western image of wild Bedouin tribes riding around in the dessert, but is a network of patronage and support including middle class professional city dwellers.

I don't think it is wrong to suggest that Islamicism, and tribalism have an influence on the opposition in Libya.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't support the opposition, nor Gaddafi either when it comes to how they would like to rule Libya. My position is of anti-imperialism and right to self-determination. Since there's a civil war in Libya, meaning a war between the people, then it's up to either side to win total control. But both must do so without the aiding of imperialists, which the rebel opposition are trying to do so. It's quite clear that the council representing the rebels contain bourgeois pro-imperialists and family members of the ousted royal family. The fact that a good portion of RevLeft support them is troubling in my opinion.

Gaddafi has had the "support" of the regimes, the USA, PRC, USSR, France, UK, Italy, which have been selling him arms since he came to power. There's no reason why the rebels can't also buy arms internationally.

Also, Gaddafi claims his government financed Sarkozy's political campaign. If that's true, he dropped the biggest bombshell of the war with that.

[neosyndic]

x

[Devrim]

the opposition is not a monolith. there is a difference between the national council (which includes ex-functionaries of the gaddafi regime), the islamic elements, and the grassroots movement that started the uprising in the first place. the task for the global left should be to identify precisely the working class elements acting within the context of the oppostiion forces and back them. this would go a long way to erase the confusion and heal the split that the lybia crisis has caused. / Miguel.

I think that the 'grassroots movement that started the movement in the first place' found its expressions in Islamicism and tribalism. I think that whatever you thought at the start of the events, now it is clear that it is a civil war.

Working class people end up fighting virtually all wars. It doesn't mean that there is anything to offer them in it.

Devrim

[neosyndic]

x

[Threetune]

Just for the record and to cut through the above screeds of confusion, imperialism is the main enemy of the woring class everywhere!

In the conflicts between imperialist interests and non-communist national bourgeois governments such as Libya, Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma, Palestine, Venezuela etc, Marxism-Leninism is for the defeat of imperialist interests first and foremost. This does not imply ‘support’ for non-communist national bourgeois governments or other popular movements in anyway shape or form.


All manner of setbacks and diplomatic, strategic, and military defeats at the hands of essentially regional nationalbourgeois governments and movements weakens the imperialist camp (which wants to run everything) and improves the chances for the working class everywhere to enter the struggle with its own programs and parties independently of any imperialist and national bourgeois interests.
The stated political posture of the particular national bourgeois government, (which change opportunistically anyway) whether of the ‘left’ or ‘right’ is of interest for all kinds of secondary reasons, not least to the workers of the particular country or region, but it would be a strange communist workers movement for example, that did not want to advocate defeat for imperialist interests first and foremost locally, as part of its revolutionary agitation against the national bourgeois government. And this would not in any way indicate “support” for the local national bourgeois government.
But for ‘socialists’ to join in with imperialist war propaganda against Libya by repeating it, is just plain weird and self-defeating. The counter revolutionary agents who swarm around the press, TV and internet sites will be well pleased that ‘socialists’ are helping to lay the ground for imperialist policy, by demonising this that or the other state in readiness for more ‘punishment’ instead of directing their criticism first and foremost against the hugely more vicious and dangerous centres of imperialism.

[neosyndic]

x

[Luís Henrique]

Since there's a civil war in Libya, meaning a war between the people, then it's up to either side to win total control. But both must do so without the aiding of imperialists, which the rebel opposition are trying to do so.

Oh, how wonderful.

So Gaddafy and the rebels are at a civil war, and they should sort between them who will control the country. Of course, for you it is absolutely immaterial the fact that Gaddafy has Russian, French, Italian weapons, that he sells oil to Italy, France, United States, Germany, that his police is equiped with Italian, French, etc., ware?

Why on Earth should people allow themselves to be butchered by Gaddafy and his weaponry bought in imperialist countries, just to meet your principles about revolutionary purity?

Farisee...

Luís Henrique