Hezbollah rejects Al-Qaeda's overtures [Archive]

YKTMX

27th August 2006, 03:47

BEIRUT — Hezbollah doesn't want al-Qaeda's help or fighters from Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization to come into Lebanon to battle Israeli forces targeting the militant group, one of two Hezbollah ministers in Lebanon's government told USA TODAY on Friday.

"Hezbollah does not need non-Lebanese fighters — certainly not any al-Qaeda fighters to join the lines," Energy Minister Mohammed Fneish said. He is one of two Hezbollah members who are in the Lebanese parliament.

"Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are two different groups," Fneish said in an interview in his office in the Energy Ministry in Lebanon's capital. "Al-Qaeda believes in killing innocents. Hezbollah is involved in a legitimate resistance (against Israel)."

click (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-28-lebanon-hezbollah_x.htm)

Phalanx

27th August 2006, 04:26

Obviously then Hizbullah regards all Jews as legitimate targets. How progressive!

YKTMX

27th August 2006, 04:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:27 AM
Obviously then Hizbullah regards all Jews as legitimate targets. How progressive!
How did you get that from the article?

Are Zionists born stupid or is it a cultural thing?

Severian

27th August 2006, 04:40

Originally posted by YKTMX+Aug 26 2006, 07:33 PM--> (YKTMX @ Aug 26 2006, 07:33 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 01:27 AM
Obviously then Hizbullah regards all Jews as legitimate targets. How progressive!
How did you get that from the article? [/b]
He got it from Hezbollah's actions. And there is a certain amount of truth to his point.

It might also be asked why you make an exception for bin Laden's organization - while supporting all kinds of other Islamist terrorists including, for example, the Iraqi resistance. Do you have a different attitude towards the bombing of civilians in London than the bombing of civilians, in say, Baghdad?

The Grey Blur

27th August 2006, 04:44

Originally posted by YKTMX+Aug 27 2006, 01:33 AM--> (YKTMX @ Aug 27 2006, 01:33 AM) How did you get that from the article? [/b]

article
Hezbollah is involved in a legitimate resistance

Hezbollah fire rockets into Israeli civilian centres so it could be said 'Hizbullah regards all Israelis as legitimate targets'.

This is obviously wrong though

They kill the odd Palestinian with those rockets as well

Phalanx

27th August 2006, 04:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:33 AM
How did you get that from the article?
I didn't get it from the article. Quotes and actions from Nasrallah clearly prove my point, I'm sure you've seen them but I'll dig them up if you want.

Phalanx

27th August 2006, 04:46

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 27 2006, 01:45 AM
Hezbollah fire rockets into Israeli civilian centres so it could be said 'Hizbullah regards all Israelis as legitimate targets'.
Hizbullah did ask Arabs to leave Haifa so they wouldn't be hit. I'm thinking it's not an Israeli thing, but a Jewish thing.

YKTMX

27th August 2006, 05:06

Originally posted by Severian+Aug 27 2006, 01:41 AM--> (Severian @ Aug 27 2006, 01:41 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:33 PM

[email protected] 27 2006, 01:27 AM
Obviously then Hizbullah regards all Jews as legitimate targets. How progressive!
How did you get that from the article?
He got it from Hezbollah's actions. And there is a certain amount of truth to his point.

It might also be asked why you make an exception for bin Laden's organization - while supporting all kinds of other Islamist terrorists including, for example, the Iraqi resistance. Do you have a different attitude towards the bombing of civilians in London than the bombing of civilians, in say, Baghdad? [/b]
I don't support the bombing of civilians in Bagdhad, so once again Sev, you're just diving headfirst into a non-sequitur without pausing for a breath.

YKTMX

27th August 2006, 05:07

Originally posted by DovBerBorochov+Aug 27 2006, 01:46 AM--> (DovBerBorochov @ Aug 27 2006, 01:46 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 01:33 AM
How did you get that from the article?
I didn't get it from the article. Quotes and actions from Nasrallah clearly prove my point, I'm sure you've seen them but I'll dig them up if you want. [/b]
There's no need - we've seen them all before thanks.

YKTMX

27th August 2006, 05:11

Originally posted by DovBerBorochov+Aug 27 2006, 01:47 AM--> (DovBerBorochov @ Aug 27 2006, 01:47 AM)
Permanent [email protected] 27 2006, 01:45 AM
Hezbollah fire rockets into Israeli civilian centres so it could be said 'Hizbullah regards all Israelis as legitimate targets'.
Hizbullah did ask Arabs to leave Haifa so they wouldn't be hit. I'm thinking it's not an Israeli thing, but a Jewish thing. [/b]
Two things:

1) The Jewish population of Haifa is quite happy to see Lebanese babies disembowled by the American-Zionist airforce. So their complaints when the slaves hit back ring rather hollow. If the Zionists want war, as they so clearly do, then they shall have it. And get thoroughly trounced as it happens :lol: How's that working out for you guys anyway? Getting royally fucked by the Lebanese people?

2) 30% of the population of "Israel" wasn't born in Israel.

I don't see people not born in Israel, adults, and who have moved there so they can be "free" in the homeland as "civilians".

If you arrive after the fact when your ancestors have stolen and raped land at gunpoint to engorge yourself in the fruits of victory, you're not an innocent.

They're like the Nazis who occupied the plush Jewish homes in Warsaw after the Jews had all been shunted into the Ghetto.

Scum of the absolute worst character.

Phalanx

27th August 2006, 05:17

The Jewish population of Haifa is quite happy to see Lebanese babies disembowled by the American-Zionist airforce. So their complaints when the slaves hit back ring rather hollow.

So you're saying every Jew in Haifa is a legitimate target? I've heard some top-notch bullshit before, but this is a first.

I don't see people not born in Israel, adults, and who have moved there so they can be "free" in the homeland as "civilians".

The vast majority of Jewish immigrants in Israel moved because of dire situations in their home countries. Dire situations for the most part mean waves of serious anti-semitism.

They're like the Nazis who occupied the plush Jewish homes in Warsaw after the Jews had all been shunted into the Ghetto.

No, they're immigrants leaving because of adverse situations in their countries. Saying all Jewish immigrants are like Nazis is like saying all immigrants in France are Nazis.

Absolute bullshit.

BuyOurEverything

27th August 2006, 05:21

2) 30% of the population of "Israel" wasn't born in Israel.

I don't see people not born in Israel, adults, and who have moved there so they can be "free" in the homeland as "civilians".

Do you feel that way about immigrants in other countries, or just Jewish ones? Are Mexican immigrants in the US legitimate targets for the Minutmen?

YKTMX

27th August 2006, 05:27

So you're saying every Jew in Haifa is a legitimate target? I've heard some top-notch bullshit before, but this is a first.

No, I didn't say that. If I had wanted to say that I would have said it. Stop lying for a second, please

I said it rings hollow for people like those living in Haifa, the vast majoriry of whom are more than happy for other people to be killed and terrorized, when they turn around and "complain" when the chickens come home to roost.

There can't be peace without justice, and as long as the Israeli people continue to vote in warmongering, bloodsoaked, racist shits like Olmert and the Fat Butcher, they'll never know Peace.

The vast majority of Jewish immigrants in Israel moved because of dire situations in their home countries. Dire situations for the most part mean waves of serious anti-semitism.

I'm talking about recent immigrants. The idea that a Jew, since the end of the second world war, would move to Israel for "peace" and to "avoid" anti-semitism is just stupid.

European, American, Australian and African Jews are far, far more safe and secure and prosperous than the Israeli Jews.

Those who emigrate to Israel today are the absolute pits.

No, they're immigrants leaving because of adverse situations in their countries. Saying all Jewish immigrants are like Nazis is like saying all immigrants in France are Nazis.

Don't be so fucking silly. Most of them are rich Westerners from America and Western Europe. Have you ever heard one of those wretched settlers in the West Bank, with their fancy houses and big cars, speak? They're all fucking middle class Americans! Which is why they can afford to go there and set up their horrible little gated communities next to the Palestinian slums.

YKTMX

27th August 2006, 05:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:22 AM

2) 30% of the population of "Israel" wasn't born in Israel.

I don't see people not born in Israel, adults, and who have moved there so they can be "free" in the homeland as "civilians".

Do you feel that way about immigrants in other countries, or just Jewish ones? Are Mexican immigrants in the US legitimate targets for the Minutmen?
Pff.

Israeli immigrants, especially the settlers, are living on land that does not belong to them. Land stolen at gunpoint by a state that still, to this day, occupies and mistreats the people from whom it stole this land. Whereas some of their ancestors could have made the "fleeing persecution" response, most of these people are middle class Westerners, who move to Israel becaust it's the "promised land". Well, it's also Palestinian land.

None of these things apply in the Mexican case, do they?

Phalanx

27th August 2006, 05:41

I said it rings hollow for people like those living in Haifa, the vast majoriry of whom are more than happy for other people to be killed and terrorized, when they turn around and "complain" when the chickens come home to roost.

You're just playing word games. You and I knew what you meant.

I'm talking about recent immigrants. The idea that a Jew, since the end of the second world war, would move to Israel for "peace" and to "avoid" anti-semitism is just stupid.

It happens all the time. There's been a huge rise in anti-semitism in France and Russia, which is why so many immigrate to Israel. The governments in their own countries don't protect them, so they believe Israel can.

European, American, Australian and African Jews are far, far more safe and secure and prosperous than the Israeli Jews.

American Jews are, but because of the restrictive immigration laws of the US, many weren't able to make it to the US. So they opted for Israel.

European and African Jews are less safe and secure than their Israeli counterparts. Antisemitism has rocked both places, which is why Morocco has seen its Jewish community fall even further.

Most of them are rich Westerners from America and Western Europe. Have you ever heard one of those wretched settlers in the West Bank, with their fancy houses and big cars, speak? They're all fucking middle class Americans! Which is why they can afford to go there and set up their horrible little gated communities next to the Palestinian slums.

Don't be so fucking ignorant. The majority of settlers came out of financial reasons, not because they hate Palestinians. I hate the settlements and I believe they should be torn down as soon as possible.

The vast majority of the settlers are secular, but the only ones that gain news coverage are the fringe groups like the ones in Hebron.

American immigrants usually don't move to the territories, but to cities like Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

The vast majority of the immigrants now are Russian or French. American immigrants only form a tiny minority.

Clearly you aren't well read on this subject. Stay off the propoganda and try to get more unbaised material. Or you can choose to be just another ill-educated frothing at the mouth fool.

YKTMX

27th August 2006, 06:10

Uou're just playing word games. You and I knew what you meant.

What the hell do you mean? I said what I "meant". Anything else you've dreamt up in that over-active Zionist imagination of yours is completely irrelevant.

There's been a huge rise in anti-semitism in France and Russia, which is why so many immigrate to Israel.

:lol: Oh yes, every few years the Zionists and the ADL announce that there's a "New Anti-Semitism". Finkelstein shot this down ages ago pal. Play a new record please.

The governments in their own countries don't protect them, so they believe Israel can.

So they're stupid as well as racist?

The majority of settlers came out of financial reasons, not because they hate Palestinians.

If that's true, then why are they always killing Palestinians? Why do they live on land they know full well is stolen Palestinian land? Why do they live on land they know is meant to form part of a Palestinian "state"?

It's hard to see these people, with the best will in the world, as anything but colonial settlers.

American immigrants usually don't move to the territories, but to cities like Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Or Haifa, which is what I was saying.

The vast majority of the immigrants now are Russian or French. American immigrants only form a tiny minority.

Which is why I said "most of them are rich Westerners from America and Western Europe."

I know Zionists don't care for maps too much, but if you check, you'll see France right in the Middle of Western Europe.

Stop your pitiful sophistry for a second.

Clearly you aren't well read on this subject. Stay off the propoganda and try to get more unbaised material. Or you can choose to be just another ill-educated frothing at the mouth fool.

What do you suggest for edification then, comrade?

From Time Immemorial? :lol:

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th August 2006, 06:31

Anonymous Red, who claims to have learnt this today:

3) religious militias are the future of revolutionary socialism.

Tomorrow, I suggest you learn to read more carefully.

Find me anyone here who believes this slur, or even so much as suggests that they do.

D_Bokk

27th August 2006, 06:36

Honest question here:

Can the people who oppose Hizb'allah make a valid argument or is their only repsonse "You're anti-semetic"?

27th August 2006, 06:39

Hizbollah doesn't indiscriminately target Israeli civilians like Israel deliberately targets Lebonese civilians, it targets Israeli Defense Force reserve bases in cities, and its been effective at killing enemy soldiers while minimizing civilian deaths, the opposite is true of israel.

While 44 israeli civilians were killed, 119 israeli soldiers were killed.

Compare this to 1,140 Lebonese civilians killed and 74 Hezbollah soldiers killed.

In other words, for every 3 Israeli soldiers killed by Hizbollah just one israeli civilian was killed, but for every 3 Hezbollah soldiers killed, the IDF murdered 46 Lebonese civilians: its obvious that Hezbollah values Israeli civilian life far more than Israel values Arab civilian life.

anonymous red

27th August 2006, 06:48

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 11:32 PM
Anonymous Red, who claims to have learnt this today:

3) religious militias are the future of revolutionary socialism.

Tomorrow, I suggest you learn to read more carefully.

Find me anyone here who believes this slur, or even so much as suggests that they do.
turn your sarcasm meter on. :blush:

Phalanx

27th August 2006, 07:00

Oh yes, every few years the Zionists and the ADL announce that there's a "New Anti-Semitism". Finkelstein shot this down ages ago pal. Play a new record please.

If you choose to deny this current rise in racism, it's only you that loses.

So they're stupid as well as racist?

You'd love to believe that, wouldn't you?

If that's true, then why are they always killing Palestinians? Why do they live on land they know full well is stolen Palestinian land? Why do they live on land they know is meant to form part of a Palestinian "state"?

Only the fringe kill Palestinians. They live on stolen land because they usually can't afford anywhere in Israel.

That land should be part of a Palestinian state, but as you well know, the Israeli government is reluctant to make concessions.

Or Haifa, which is what I was saying.

Okay, what are those in Haifa doing to the Palestinians?

I know Zionists don't care for maps too much, but if you check, you'll see France right in the Middle of Western Europe.

Sorry, but I meant most were Russians, but there is a sizable minority of French Jews as well.

But I know supporters of religious fundementalist groups don't care too much for facts. Or rational thoughts at that.

its obvious that Hezbollah values Israeli civilian life far more than Israel values Arab civilian life.

Are you kidding? Hizbullah didn't have the means to kill as many civilians as they'd liked. Their rockets were too inaccurate, so instead of hitting markets and nurserys, they hit fields.

Xiao Banfa

27th August 2006, 09:53

QUOTE
its obvious that Hezbollah values Israeli civilian life far more than Israel values Arab civilian life.

Are you kidding? Hizbullah didn't have the means to kill as many civilians as they'd liked. Their rockets were too inaccurate, so instead of hitting markets and nurserys, they hit fields.

This is exactly the bullshit propaganda line in Israel- "If Hezbollah could kill more civillians they would"

This does not square up with facts!

This does not square up with the declared policy of the Hezbollah leadership!

This propaganda ignores Hezbollah history of attacking legitimate targets!

These comrades have the capacity to inflict massive damage on the Zionist and US imperialist enemy, they could kill many innocent civillians if they chose to-but they don't.

chebol

27th August 2006, 10:31

A coupla points.

1. YKTMX is really good at riling people up while putting across a valid point, often resulting in people not subscribing to an otherwise valid point of view.

2. Israeli citizens do what precisely for 2 or 3 years after they come of age? (Hint: it involves a uniform). And what is their relation to the military after they "finish" their military service? They remain liable to being called up to defend Israel. So, on one reading of it at least, all (or almost all) adult Israeli 'civilians' could be regarded as 'military' targets.

Regardless, the points about the proportional responses of the various sides still stands. If Hezbollah, with their inaccurate missiles, managed to hit only a small number of civilians, what is the excuse of the IDF, which was using the most up-to-date, laser-guided precision missiles imported during the conflict from the US, not to mention their use of cluster-bombs, which is currently under investigation for breaching international law (and is still killing Lebanese civilians).

Anyone on this board that can still support Israel after this conflict (as if this were somehow 'decisive') should go shove their head in a bucket of something foul. You are no more "left" than the national "socialists".

It is entirely unsurprising that there is an increase in anti-semitism, as Israel's criminal violations of human rights and international law are infuriating millions around the world. Given that Israel and zionist organisations around the world (wrongly) claim to speak for world jewry, what do you really expect? We should, as leftists, be fighting against anti-semitism as we would against any racism. And this means fighting against Israel and it's imperialist offensive.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th August 2006, 13:11

Anonymous Red:

turn your sarcasm meter on.

Well, forgive me if I misunderstood you, but in the context your 'sacracsm' was very well disguised.

Jesus Christ!

27th August 2006, 17:58

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 27 2006, 06:54 AM

These comrades have the capacity to inflict massive damage on the Zionist and US imperialist enemy, they could kill many innocent civillians if they chose to-but they don't.
I refuse to consider Islamo-facists as my comrades I'm sorry.

The land has been given/taken by groups for the past 3,000 years so I don't see how anyone can argue one side or the other has historical claims to the land.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th August 2006, 20:07

JC:

I refuse to consider Islamo-burgers as my comrades I'm sorry

Fortunately, they will ignore this significant set back.

rouchambeau

27th August 2006, 21:06

BUT OMG AL-KITE-UH IS ANTI-ISREAL!!!!!111

Y WOOD HIZBALLUH REJECT THERE HELP?!?!?!!12121

violencia.Proletariat

27th August 2006, 21:06

I refuse to consider Islamo-facists as my comrades I'm sorry.

Can you please tell me what state in the middle east is fascist? :rolleyes: Way to use moronic un-educated buzz words compliments of the american government.

Keyser

27th August 2006, 21:22

YKTMX:

When you talk of the city of Haifa, that falls within the boundries of the pre-1967 border of Israel, which excludes the now occupied terratories which where according to some intitiatives from some institutions such as the United Nations, to be put aside for a newly independent Palestinian state.

What is your view as to what should consitute a Palestinian state? Is it all of historic Palestine that was ruled under the pre-1948 British Mandate? The now occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the eastern sector of Jerusalem as the capital? Or a bi-national, multi-ethnic, secular state with a confederal autnomous system for Hebrews, Arabs, Tukomens, Armenians, Greeks and all the other nationalities/ethnicities/religious groupings in the area?

Jamal

27th August 2006, 22:29

Are you kidding? Hizbullah didn't have the means to kill as many civilians as they'd liked. Their rockets were too inaccurate, so instead of hitting markets and nurserys, they hit fields.

Man, don't be so innocent!!! (by saying innocent, I'm trying not to say stupid)
you think that hitting direct targets at tens of kms and hitting them with accuracy(bases, reserves base, targets in Haifa, targets in Affoula...) accuracy is what was shown and proved from Hezbollah's rocket attacks.

They wanted to hit markets and nurseries if they have the ability?!?!
Man, here goes innocense again, this yet shows nothing bad about Hezbollah, it just shows that you are basing your piont of view on opinions and not facts!!!

The land has been given/taken by groups for the past 3,000 years so I don't see how anyone can argue one side or the other has historical claims to the land.

WTF!!!
you are saying that if people where living in a land, and they left, other people came to live at these lands, do the people that where living there at first have the right to come and massacre the hell out of the people that have lived there for more than a thousand years to retreave "their land"?

What is your view as to what should consitute a Palestinian state? Is it all of historic Palestine that was ruled under the pre-1948 British Mandate? The now occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the eastern sector of Jerusalem as the capital? Or a bi-national, multi-ethnic, secular state with a confederal autnomous system for Hebrews, Arabs, Tukomens, Armenians, Greeks and all the other nationalities/ethnicities/religious groupings in the area?

man, stop confusing your self! you are stuck in an infinite loop here! its like you have a paper written on both sides of it "turn the page" and you are reading this and turning it and then reading the other "turn the page" on the other side and turning the page and you are stuck turning it and turning it and you are still turning it till now! Anyone who has a map knows what and where the Palestinian state be!!!

DovBerBorochov, you say that the Jews that have been treated in a sectarian way are immigrating to Israel, but in your location section, you wrote : wisconsen, and soon Israel. What, are you opressed in the USA or do you feel, being a Jew, your homeland is calling you?

Phalanx

27th August 2006, 22:35

DovBerBorochov, you say that the Jews that have been treated in a sectarian way are immigrating to Israel, but in your location section, you wrote : wisconsen, and soon Israel. What, are you opressed in the USA or do you feel, being a Jew, your homeland is calling you?

No, I want to go out of guilt. I don't want to see the Israeli government putting up more settlements, setting up more restrictions on the Palestinians, and not even addressing the issue of poverty in Israel. I'm going to see if I can help. Idealistic, maybe, but it's worth a shot.

I'm in no way implying that Jews in America are moving to Israel because of oppression. But Jews in Russia, Morocco, Tunisia and France are moving for just that reason.

you think that hitting direct targets at tens of kms and hitting them with accuracy(bases, reserves base, targets in Haifa, targets in Affoula...) accuracy is what was shown and proved from Hezbollah's rocket attacks.

No, the rockets weren't accurate at all. Do you honestly think Hizbullah was targeting Jenin and Nazareth? Of course not! The sole purpose of the rockets were to cause as much pain and damage as possible.

Fortunately, they will ignore this significant set back.

I'm sure they're reaping the benefits of having you as a supporter!

:rolleyes:

Severian

28th August 2006, 03:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:01 PM
Are you kidding? Hizbullah didn't have the means to kill as many civilians as they'd liked. Their rockets were too inaccurate, so instead of hitting markets and nurserys, they hit fields.
Nasrallah is a reactionary bourgeois nationalist. But he is not Satan.

Why do you think Hamas, Hezbollah with its rockets, etc, target civilians?

Are they stupid? Do they not know that historically, wars are often lost by the side that targets civilians first and most? (See "The Lessons of Terror" by Caleb Carr.) Have they not thought about how to achieve their own nationalist goals?

No. They target civilians because hitting a military target is much harder, and their weapons and capabilities are very limited. Military targets are also called "hard targets" for a reason - they're protected.

A city is a much larger and more stationary target than a military unit. If all a groups has is inaccurate weapons, they'll aim for the city.

The U.S. Air Force used to do the same thing, starting with WWII. But now they have guided weapons, so they aim for specific military targets - or sometimes specific infrastructure targets. Like bridges and trucks, civilian targets the Israelis bombed with guided weapons in this war.

This is not out of the goodness of their pure hearts. It's because hitting a military unit is more effective, in military terms. Also more effective in achieving the political objectives of the war. (As in Clausewitz)

If Hezbollah had guided weapons, they'd do the same thing. And even as it is, Hezbollah primarily prefers military targets, more than Hamas and other groups. Most of the Israelis killed in this war were soldiers, not to mention those killed during the '82-2000 resistance to the occupation of south Lebanon.

Nasrallah offered to stop rocketing targets in Israel - if Israel would stop bombing Lebanon from the air. He said he prefers to fight it out military to militiary - and Hezbollah's actions fit that statement. (In guerilla war of course, they're not going to confront the IDF in conventional warfare.)

I have to say your cheap demonization of Hezbollah - and the necessary implication that the IDF and Washington are morally superior, since they don't use their guided weapons in that Hezbollah allegedly would - reflect support to Israeli and U.S. imperialism. The flip side from the support to Hezbollah by YTKMX et al.

Real working-class political independence is the rarest thing, on the left. The Left has always been about Popular Frontism and lined up behind one segment or another of the bourgeoisie.

With YTKMX et al, its Third World bourgeois nationalism - but at least not their "own" bourgeoisie.

It'd say the anti-anti-imperialists - most clearly Borochov, but also Devrim, Alf, Leo, etc. - are tacitly lining up with their own bourgeoisie. (In the case of Devrim et al, reflected in their attitude towards Kurdish self-determination among other things.)

Sitting on a fence is an unstable position - you tend to come off in in support of some major force. If it's not the working class, it'll be some section of the bourgeoisie.

Phalanx

28th August 2006, 03:50

Are they stupid? Do they not know that historically, wars are often lost by the side that targets civilians first and most? (See "The Lessons of Terror" by Caleb Carr.) Have they not thought about how to achieve their own nationalist goals?

Nasrallah probably has looked at history. He knows that in general Israel doesn't tolerate significant casualties, so he tries to stir up Israeli anger towards the government. And it worked well. When the IDF failed to silence the rocket launchers, the public brought much of the blame to the government.

I have to say your cheap demonization of Hezbollah - and the necessary implication that the IDF and Washington are morally superior, since they don't use their guided weapons in that Hezbollah allegedly would - reflect support to Israeli and U.S. imperialism. The flip side from the support to Hezbollah by YTKMX et al.

I don't believe Israel or Washington are morally superior, I'm attacking Hizbullah now because this site sides generally with Hizbullah. I argue against Israel when I'm talking to someone pro-Israel.

It'd say the anti-anti-imperialists - most clearly Borochov, but also Devrim, Alf, Leo, etc. - are tacitly lining up with their own bourgeoisie. (In the case of Devrim et al, reflected in their attitude towards Kurdish self-determination among other things.)

Again, I don't support the IDF or the US government. I'm playing the devil's advocate in a situation which I have no sympathy to any side.

Sitting on a fence is an unstable position - you tend to come off in in support of some major force. If it's not the working class, it'll be some section of the bourgeoisie.

I'll be sitting on this fence for awhile, comrade. I refuse to show any support for either reactionary side. What I will support is a united socialist state, Arab and Jew having equal representation.

Devrim

28th August 2006, 04:22

It'd say the anti-anti-imperialists - most clearly Borochov, but also Devrim, Alf, Leo, etc. - are tacitly lining up with their own bourgeoisie. (In the case of Devrim et al, reflected in their attitude towards Kurdish self-determination among other things.)

Sitting on a fence is an unstable position - you tend to come off in in support of some major force. If it's not the working class, it'll be some section of the bourgeoisie.

Internationalism is not sitting on the fence. It is taking the side of the working class. To say that our position is lining up with 'our own' bourgeoise is ludicrous. Does Alf's position on Kurdish self determination line him up with 'his own' bourgeoisie (he is a member of the ICC in the UK)? As for members of the EKS in Turkey, neither Leo nor I is an ethnic Turk, and Leo is actually a Kurd.

I think our position on the Kurdish conflict is clear:
Originally posted by EKS
The entire region is being pulled closer, and closer to war. Iraq is descending into civil war, and sectarian massacres. Lebanon is still picking up the bodies from the wreckage of a murderous war, which could start again at any moment. The horror in the West Bank continues in the same way as it has for nearly the last fifty years. And at the very moment the Turkish army is shelling villages in Northern Iraq.

The only answer to this deepening cycle of barbarism lies with the working class. A working class that is capable of fighting for its own interests is not one that will be led into war. The struggle against war starts at work. Israel workers have no interest in killing Lebanese, and Palestinian workers, and vice versa. Turkish workers have no interest in killing Kurkish workers, and vice versa. We condemn the Israeli state, Hizbullah, the PLO, the Turkish state and the PKK equally.

How does that line us up with the Turkish bourgeoisie?

Devrim

Severian

28th August 2006, 08:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:23 PM

It'd say the anti-anti-imperialists - most clearly Borochov, but also Devrim, Alf, Leo, etc. - are tacitly lining up with their own bourgeoisie. (In the case of Devrim et al, reflected in their attitude towards Kurdish self-determination among other things.)

Sitting on a fence is an unstable position - you tend to come off in in support of some major force. If it's not the working class, it'll be some section of the bourgeoisie.

Internationalism is not sitting on the fence. It is taking the side of the working class.
Do you? For example: When's the last time you supported and identified with a revolution?

It's one thing to support "proletarian revolution" in the abstract, but how about a real one? Some people find it easier to sit on the fence, with or without radical-sounding rhetoric.

And if you conclude there hasn't been a proletarian revolution for...how long? Ever? Then you're likely to conclude, on some level, and act in practice, as if it's that's not a practical prospect which can guide your actions today.

To say that our position is lining up with 'our own' bourgeoise is ludicrous. Does Alf's position on Kurdish self determination line him up with 'his own' bourgeoisie (he is a member of the ICC in the UK)?

I'm fairly sure the UK ruling class opposes Kurdish self-determination, yes. They drew the current borders. But maybe I don't understand whatever point you're trying to make here.

As for members of the EKS in Turkey, neither Leo nor I is an ethnic Turk, and Leo is actually a Kurd.

*shrugs* Regardless, opposing Kurdish self-determination puts you more in line with the Turkish ruling class and government. Makes ya sound all pure and respectable, compared to the "separatists".

I might say the same about your "equal blame" line on Lebanon, given that the Turkish and Israeli governments are allied.

I think our position on the Kurdish conflict is clear.....We condemn the Israeli state, Hizbullah, the PLO, the Turkish state and the PKK equally.

Sure it's clear. Verbally, your position is clearly fence-sitting on the real-world conflicts of today. Actually, that tends to be unsustainable as I said.

Political action consists of more than making statements which make your abstract position clear.

(As a side point, how did you arrive at the conclusion that they all needed to be condemned "equally"? Sounds a priori, not something that's likely to occur in the messy real world, or from an examination of it.)

Anyway, there's a whole history of how "Third Camp" groups have proved unable to seriously oppose their own ruling classes.

****

As for Borochov, I'll just point out his username is taken from a historic left Zionist, Ber Borochov, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ber_Borochov) who promoted colonial settlement in Palestine. In a way, the left Zionists were worst of all for Arab working people.

The early bourgeois Zionists employed Arab workers and tenant farmers - but the left, "socialist" Zionists drove them off the land to make way for Jewish-settler workers and farmers. I'm describing events even before the founding of the Israeli state.

Zionism, left or right, by its nature requires expelling the native population or depriving it of rights, and the left Zionists like Borochov helped put it on a workable, sustainable basis. The basis of a multi-class nation of settlers, not just a thin, easily overthrown layer of exploiters.

Emperor Ronald Reagan

28th August 2006, 08:26

Originally posted by DovBerBorochov+Aug 27 2006, 01:47 AM--> (DovBerBorochov @ Aug 27 2006, 01:47 AM)
Permanent [email protected] 27 2006, 01:45 AM
Hezbollah fire rockets into Israeli civilian centres so it could be said 'Hizbullah regards all Israelis as legitimate targets'.
Hizbullah did ask Arabs to leave Haifa so they wouldn't be hit. I'm thinking it's not an Israeli thing, but a Jewish thing.[/b]

Please stop pretending you know a thing about armed struggle, the Middle East, or Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah. You do not even speak or read Arabic. Do not pretend you have any concrete and meaningful knowledge about the Arab world until you acquire both of these skills. As it happens, you and many idiots like you write on the Middle East without being trained or knowledgeable about it. For example, Nasrallah gave an interview to New TV (a Lebanese TV station broadcast in Arabic, of course you wouldn't know anything about this since it is not Fox News) within the last couple of days in which he categorically rejected any religious state in Lebanon. It is obvious Nasrallah steered the party away from the idea of an Islamic republic, which was supported by some figured in the party and by some factions in Iran. But you don't know anything about that of course, because such information is written and Arabic and does not appear on O'Reilly's show. Please, in the future, spare us your intellectually bankrupt pontifications.

Janus

28th August 2006, 09:36

Isn't the main reason behind Hezbollah's rejection of Al-Qaeda support due to the fact that Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization while Hezbollah is Shiite so the excuses are really just to polite rejections. Besides, Hezbollah can get plenty of support from Iran and in fact, I believe some Iranians have already gone to fight.

Xiao Banfa

28th August 2006, 09:49

They reject al Qaeda and they embrace socialists. I think this is the kind of armed group the middle east needs more of.

Jamal

28th August 2006, 14:36

(DovBerBorochov @ Aug 27 2006, 01:47 AM)

(Permanent Revolution @ Aug 27 2006, 01:45 AM)
Hezbollah fire rockets into Israeli civilian centres so it could be said 'Hizbullah regards all Israelis as legitimate targets'.

Hizbullah did ask Arabs to leave Haifa so they wouldn't be hit. I'm thinking it's not an Israeli thing, but a Jewish thing.

yeah, so Nasralla in your opinion would have the right to ask the Israelies to leave Tel Aviv and hit it with his rocketsright after!

Isn't the main reason behind Hezbollah's rejection of Al-Qaeda support due to the fact that Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization while Hezbollah is Shiite so the excuses are really just to polite rejections. Besides, Hezbollah can get plenty of support from Iran and in fact, I believe some Iranians have already gone to fight.

Why are you searching so hard to say that something good done by Hezbollah is bad?

Reuben

28th August 2006, 15:28

Originally posted by YKTMX+Aug 27 2006, 02:12 AM--> (YKTMX @ Aug 27 2006, 02:12 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:47 AM

Permanent [email protected] 27 2006, 01:45 AM
Hezbollah fire rockets into Israeli civilian centres so it could be said 'Hizbullah regards all Israelis as legitimate targets'.
Hizbullah did ask Arabs to leave Haifa so they wouldn't be hit. I'm thinking it's not an Israeli thing, but a Jewish thing.
Two things:

1) The Jewish population of Haifa is quite happy to see Lebanese babies disembowled by the American-Zionist airforce. So their complaints when the slaves hit back ring rather hollow. If the Zionists want war, as they so clearly do, then they shall have it. And get thoroughly trounced as it happens :lol: How's that working out for you guys anyway? Getting royally fucked by the Lebanese people?

2) 30% of the population of "Israel" wasn't born in Israel.

I don't see people not born in Israel, adults, and who have moved there so they can be "free" in the homeland as "civilians".

If you arrive after the fact when your ancestors have stolen and raped land at gunpoint to engorge yourself in the fruits of victory, you're not an innocent.

They're like the Nazis who occupied the plush Jewish homes in Warsaw after the Jews had all been shunted into the Ghetto.

Scum of the absolute worst character. [/b]
The Jewish population of Haifa is quite happy to see Lebanese babies disembowled by the American-Zionist airforce.

THis sweeping statement about an entire ethnic population of a city is clumsy - no put it light. I would be at all suprised if some Haifan jews managed to get to the 5,000 strong demonstration against the war in Tel Aviv organsied by groups such as gush shalom/ Do their complaints 'ring back rather hollow'.

YKTMX: The idea that a Jew, since the end of the second world war, would move to Israel for "peace" and to "avoid" anti-semitism is just stupid.

Mate you really have no idea what you are talking about. In the 1960s Algeria deemed is 140,000 strong jewish population to be no longer under the protection of the law aking them virtually refugees over night. Nasser expelled 25,000 jews in the same period. I take it they didnt go to israel to avoid anti-semitism.

ahahahahahahha

Phalanx

28th August 2006, 18:53

The early bourgeois Zionists employed Arab workers and tenant farmers - but the left, "socialist" Zionists drove them off the land to make way for Jewish-settler workers and farmers. I'm describing events even before the founding of the Israeli state.

Borochov didn't advocate the exploiting or expelling of the Palestinian relations. He believed Arab and Jew could live together in a socialist state, not one based off oppressor and the oppressed.

Try to get more information than just wikipedia.

Please stop pretending you know a thing about armed struggle, the Middle East, or Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah. You do not even speak or read Arabic. Do not pretend you have any concrete and meaningful knowledge about the Arab world until you acquire both of these skills.

Great, a regular 'expert' on the Middle East. You probably haven't traveled to the occupied territories or Israel. But somehow you're fully aware of the situation in the Middle East, and Nasrallah feels like your personal friend.

It makes me sick when ignorant people like you, who know little but the propoganda that they've been devouring, claim to know everyone and everything about the conflict.

It's people like you that have no fucking clue to what's going on.

yeah, so Nasralla in your opinion would have the right to ask the Israelies to leave Tel Aviv and hit it with his rocketsright after!

No, I'm saying that his goal is to kill Jews only. Why else would he ask the Arab population to leave?

Morag

28th August 2006, 21:07

Originally posted by Emperor Ronald Reagan+Aug 28 2006, 05:27 AM--> (Emperor Ronald Reagan @ Aug 28 2006, 05:27 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:47 AM

Permanent [email protected] 27 2006, 01:45 AM
Hezbollah fire rockets into Israeli civilian centres so it could be said 'Hizbullah regards all Israelis as legitimate targets'.
Hizbullah did ask Arabs to leave Haifa so they wouldn't be hit. I'm thinking it's not an Israeli thing, but a Jewish thing.

Please stop pretending you know a thing about armed struggle, the Middle East, or Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah. You do not even speak or read Arabic. Do not pretend you have any concrete and meaningful knowledge about the Arab world until you acquire both of these skills. As it happens, you and many idiots like you write on the Middle East without being trained or knowledgeable about it. For example, Nasrallah gave an interview to New TV (a Lebanese TV station broadcast in Arabic, of course you wouldn't know anything about this since it is not Fox News) within the last couple of days in which he categorically rejected any religious state in Lebanon. It is obvious Nasrallah steered the party away from the idea of an Islamic republic, which was supported by some figured in the party and by some factions in Iran. But you don't know anything about that of course, because such information is written and Arabic and does not appear on O'Reilly's show. Please, in the future, spare us your intellectually bankrupt pontifications. [/b]
Oh. Okay. From now on, no one who hasn't personally experienced something will be allowed to discuss or hold an opinion on that issue. We'll just be led around by those who have, without thinking. Baaah.

.....................

Does it matter if Hizb'allah doesn't want al-Queda in Lebanon?

I mean, it could be claimed that they don't want Sunni interference in Lebanon; it could be claimed that having al-Queda show up would only bolster Israeli claims that hizb'allah is a terrorist organisation that needs to be crushed. Afterall, get al-Queda involved, and a lot of avergae opinion for Hizb'allah that came over during the war will stop. Hizb'allah also probably doesn't want al-Queda to come in, because it will dilute it's own power base, as well as compete for influence.

Emperor Ronald Reagan

29th August 2006, 01:30

You probably haven't traveled to the occupied territories or Israel. But somehow you're fully aware of the situation in the Middle East, and Nasrallah feels like your personal friend.

I think you are questioning the wrong person's credentials, Mr. Zionist apologist and Orientalist. First of all, I just returned from my fourth visit to the West Bank just over a week ago, where I was volunteering for over a month visiting Palestinian refugee camps and villages, meeting with community leaders, assisting communities in carrying out cleaning, planting, construction.. Meeting with Palestinian intellectuals and academics, experiencing first-hand the difficulties faced by Palestinians on a daily basis, et cetera, et cetera. I even made a thread about it, here. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52598) I can read and write Arabic (you can't). I read Middle Eastern news and dialogues (written in Arabic, which you wouldn't understand) on a daily basis. I am near graduating with a Near Eastern Studies major (you aren't) from a nationally ranked university. When Nasrallah gave an interview to New TV station a couple of days ago satellite, I watched and understood, which you couldn't understand even have any knowledge of the event. And yes, my challenge matters, the politics of acquiring of not acquiring Arabic language skills in the U.S. is very important. It means when Arabic dialogue and discussions emerge, you don’t know about them. Why? Because they write them in Arabic. So please, stop pretending you know a damn thing about the Middle East until you acquire these skills.

Morag

29th August 2006, 02:27

Originally posted by Emperor Ronald [email protected] 28 2006, 10:31 PM

You probably haven't traveled to the occupied territories or Israel. But somehow you're fully aware of the situation in the Middle East, and Nasrallah feels like your personal friend.

I think you are questioning the wrong person's credentials, Mr. Zionist apologist and Orientalist. First of all, I just returned from my fourth visit to the West Bank just over a week ago, where I was volunteering for over a month visiting Palestinian refugee camps and villages, meeting with community leaders, assisting communities in carrying out cleaning, planting, construction.. Meeting with Palestinian intellectuals and academics, experiencing first-hand the difficulties faced by Palestinians on a daily basis, et cetera, et cetera. I even made a thread about it, here. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52598) I can read and write Arabic (you can't). I read Middle Eastern news and dialogues (written in Arabic, which you wouldn't understand) on a daily basis. I am near graduating with a Near Eastern Studies major (you aren't) from a nationally ranked university. When Nasrallah gave an interview to New TV station a couple of days ago satellite, I watched and understood, which you couldn't understand even have any knowledge of the event. And yes, my challenge matters, the politics of acquiring of not acquiring Arabic language skills in the U.S. is very important. It means when Arabic dialogue and discussions emerge, you don’t know about them. Why? Because they write them in Arabic. So please, stop pretending you know a damn thing about the Middle East until you acquire these skills.
So even the people who agree with you should shut up, if they can't speak or read Arabic? That's a great plan.

Phalanx

29th August 2006, 02:45

Originally posted by Emperor Ronald [email protected] 28 2006, 10:31 PM
I think you are questioning the wrong person's credentials, Mr. Zionist apologist and Orientalist. First of all, I just returned from my fourth visit to the West Bank just over a week ago, where I was volunteering for over a month visiting Palestinian refugee camps and villages, meeting with community leaders, assisting communities in carrying out cleaning, planting, construction.. Meeting with Palestinian intellectuals and academics, experiencing first-hand the difficulties faced by Palestinians on a daily basis, et cetera, et cetera. I even made a thread about it, here. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52598) I can read and write Arabic (you can't). I read Middle Eastern news and dialogues (written in Arabic, which you wouldn't understand) on a daily basis. I am near graduating with a Near Eastern Studies major (you aren't) from a nationally ranked university. When Nasrallah gave an interview to New TV station a couple of days ago satellite, I watched and understood, which you couldn't understand even have any knowledge of the event. And yes, my challenge matters, the politics of acquiring of not acquiring Arabic language skills in the U.S. is very important. It means when Arabic dialogue and discussions emerge, you don’t know about them. Why? Because they write them in Arabic. So please, stop pretending you know a damn thing about the Middle East until you acquire these skills.
I have been to the occupied territories and I learned enough Arabic to get by. Unfortunately, when you stop using the language regularly, it begins to fade.

But regardless, you're using incredibly stupid logic. Doesn't that mean you can't criticize Israel because you don't speak Hebrew?

Stop with the higher-than-thou bullshit and put out some real arguments.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 04:35

Morag, YKTMX was very clear; he was not talking about 'personal experience' (as you would know if you read with more care). Here are his words:

Please stop pretending you know a thing about armed struggle, the Middle East, or Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah. You do not even speak or read Arabic. Do not pretend you have any concrete and meaningful knowledge about the Arab world until you acquire both of these skills.

YKTMX is talking about knowledge, not experience.

He did not say "Please stop pretending you have experienced armed struggle".

He is clearly criticisng ignorance.

For example, I personally know nothing of ancient Tibet, and, clearly, it is now too late for me to experience it. But that does not stop me from learning ancient Tibetan, and consulting the relevant sources, thereby rectifying my lack of knowledge.

This is exactly what YKTMX is saying about Lebanon, etc.

Now he may be right in what he says, or he may be wrong (I happen to think the former), but if you are going to address his argument (not one you prefer he had advanced), may I suggest you ascertain what it is first?

Morag

29th August 2006, 05:10

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 01:36 AM
Morag, YKTMX was very clear; he was not talking about 'personal experience' (as you would know if you read with more care). Here are his words:

Please stop pretending you know a thing about armed struggle, the Middle East, or Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah. You do not even speak or read Arabic. Do not pretend you have any concrete and meaningful knowledge about the Arab world until you acquire both of these skills.

YKTMX is talking about knowledge, not experience.

He did not say "Please stop pretending you have experienced armed struggle".

He is clearly criticisng ignorance.

For example, I personally know nothing of ancient Tibet, and, clearly, it is now too late for me to experience it. But that does not stop me from learning ancient Tibetan, and consulting the relevant sources, thereby rectifying my lack of knowledge.

This is exactly what YKTMX is saying about Lebanon, etc.

Now he may be right in what he says, or he may be wrong (I happen to think the former), but if you are going to address his argument (not one you prefer he had advanced), may I suggest you ascertain what it is first?
Actually YKTMX said nothing that I quoted, as you'd know if you'd read who wrote what was quoted. And what Emperor Ronald Reagan followed those words up by. And, I'm suggesting, as I did, that we all have to use the knowledge we can pocess to come to our own conclusions about things, not remain ignorant or take someones word for it. Otherwise, we're sheep following what someone has told us to believe. He's saying that no one can know anything about armed struggle, the Middle East, or Nasrallah without understanding Arabic and we should therefore not say anything about it. I disagree forcefully, and I find the attitude elitist and insulting.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 05:45

Morag, you are absolutely right, so apologies are due to you, but the point I made was valid.

The rest of what you say is not addressed to what I posted, but to what is this time a genuine figment of your own imagination.

So I cannot comment.

Morag

29th August 2006, 06:48

ERR said that if we don't know Arabic, we can't understand the situation in Lebanon.

Please stop pretending you know a thing about armed struggle, the Middle East, or Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah. You do not even speak or read Arabic. Do not pretend you have any concrete and meaningful knowledge about the Arab world until you acquire both of these skills.

This means that most of us can't understand the situation. ERR follows this by saying we therefore can't be critical of Nasrallah or Hizb'allah.

But you don't know anything about [Nasrallah's actions and his interview], because such information is written and Arabic and does not appear on O'Reilly's show. Please, in the future, spare us your intellectually bankrupt pontifications.

It should also mean that we can't be supportive, following that logic, but ERR doesn't make this claim. Now, I'm all for the learning of languages, and have been making plans to begin Arabic language training, and I truly believe that you need to understand a language before you fully understand the ins and outs of a group of people, their politics, and their discourse. But, do we need to understand Russian to criticise Stalin or Lenin or Trotsky or any other Russian? Do we need to understand Chinese before we can understand what's happening in China? No. Likewise, does a Lebanese person have no right to criticise Israel if they cannot understand Hebrew? Of course not. (Understanding that Arabic is also an official language in Israel) Can a Lebanese person understand every single facet of Israeli life, culture and politics without being Israeli? No, just as I can't understand everything about American culture, even if I'm Canadian. But the Lebanese person can learn and understand enough about Israel to criticise and resist Israel just as much as I can understand and learn enough about the US to criticise and resist it. So why can't a person from the United States, Canada, or anywhere else, learn and understand enough about Lebanon to comment and take a critical position on Lebanon, even if they don't know Arabic?

His claim wasn't against ignorance at all. His claim was that unless we knew Arabic, we had no right to an opinion contrary to Hizb'allah's, that until we've been to the Occupied Territories (later post), we couldn't understand armed struggle or the situation on the ground. And while I'm sure we'd all love to speak every language and visit every nation, region and village in the world, it isn't feasible. But many people are still fully capable of learning and taking critical positions on different situations- without that assumption, there isn't much point to being a communist, is there? If people can't understand and come to their own conclusions without years of study on specific issues, then how do we expect people to understand that capitalism or religion or the state is oppressing them? In fact, how do some many of us come to this knowledge at such a young age, if we can't digest available information and form opinions? As intelligent people, we can look at the world and it's material conditions and form opinions and ideas. It's ridiculous to say we can't, and if we can't, we'd be forced to follow the lead of someone else, no matter whether it's in our interests or not.

So I don't think it's a figment of my imagination that ERR is suggesting we can't understand the situation in the Middle East without learning Arabic, because he clearly states it. I still find it elitist and insulting.

Emperor Ronald Reagan

29th August 2006, 10:10

That is not my point, Morag. My point is how important, nay, essential it is for those who study the Arab world to learn Arabic well (and the other languages of the Middle East for ME specialists). You would not know anything about some, nay most, topics if you only read English or French books on the Arab world.

I also would bet my last dime DovBer isn't as "fluent" as he claims. Please note "fluent Arabic" in political speak is sorta like "fluent Russian" in political speak. Princess Condi supposedly speaks "fluent Russian," but when interviewed by a Russian television station, displayed an embarassing lack of ability with the language -- a typical 1st year college student basically would have done better. There aren't more than a few thousand non-Arabic Americans who speak fluent Arabic, and they're typically men who spent years in the region speaking nothing but Arabic.

Morag

29th August 2006, 10:38

Originally posted by Emperor Ronald [email protected] 29 2006, 07:11 AM
That is not my point, Morag. My point is how important, nay, essential it is for those who study the Arab world to learn Arabic well (and the other languages of the Middle East for ME specialists). You would not know anything about some, nay most, topics if you only read English or French books on the Arab world.

I'm not arguing the importance of learning a language to aid in understanding a culture. I objected to your statement that until a person has an adequate understanding of the language they can't undertand and shouldn't take opposing positions, which is what I thought your argument was. If this isn't what you meant, I apologise for my mistake. I still stand by my argument that a person can still take correct positions in other areas without a knowledge of the language.

Severian

29th August 2006, 11:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:54 AM
Borochov didn't advocate the exploiting or expelling of the Palestinian relations.
Never said he did. I said he advocated settlement of European colonists in British-controlled Palestine. Now, what is the relationship between settlers and natives in a colonial context? Hint: not unity.

He believed Arab and Jew could live together in a socialist state, not one based off oppressor and the oppressed.

And his good intentions paved the way to the colonial-settler state of Israel.

Martin Blank

29th August 2006, 11:39

This conversation, and all the similar ones that have taken place on this point recently, all belong in the "Irony is the Heaviest Element on the Periodic Table" department. Here's what I mean:

In this debate, generally speaking, we see the self-described "Leninists" chanting, "Rah! Rah! Hezbollah!" (complete with HB avatars and smarmy quotes in their signature lines), and the "anti-Leninists" (anarchists, left-communists, etc.) pointing out the reactionary character of Hizb'allah and similar movements (with the main exceptions to the latter being Severian, who sees himself as a "Leninist", and me, who doesn't fit into any of the 20th century doctrines).

And, to give credit where credit is due, I have to thank Severian for leading me to the core irony in this debate. He tried once to point it out, but the thread has more or less withered on the vine.

I wonder what all the self-described "Leninists" on here think Lenin's view on a situation like this would be? Would he have supported Hizb'allah in its fight against imperialism? Well, let's ask him.

Q: Comrade Lenin, what is the communist view of groups like Hizb'allah, the Iraqi "resistance", etc.?

A: "It is particularly important to bear in mind ... the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc." (Lenin, "Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Question," Collected Works Vol. 31, p. 149-150)

Q: So, you don't see such movements as automatically deserving support, even if they are fighting imperialism?

A: "A certain understanding has emerged between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often, even perhaps in most cases, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, although they also support national movements, nevertheless fight against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes with a certain degree of agreement with the imperialist bourgeoisie, that is to say together with it.... The point about this is that as communists we will only support the bourgeois freedom movements in the colonial countries if these movements are really revolutionary and if their representatives are not opposed to us training and organising the peasantry in a revolutionary way. If that is no good, then the communists there also have a duty to fight against the reformist bourgeoisie." (Lenin, "Report to the Commission on the National
and Colonial Question", Minutes of the Second Congress of the Communist International; a slightly different translation is found in Lenin's Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 242)

Well, I think that's kinda clear ... and ironic, don't you think?

I mean, if we take what Lenin said was his view on the subject, and not what Trotsky or Stalin or any other self-described "Leninist" said was Lenin's view, then it appears that the "anti-Leninists" -- the anarchists, the left-communists, etc. -- are more in tune with Lenin than the "Leninists" in this discussion, and the "Leninists" are playing the role that Lenin ascribed to Social-Democracy: supporting bourgeois-reformist movements that are nevertheless in accord with imperialism on the question of suppressing real revolutionary organizing.

Irony, sweet irony! You have a lovely collection of fig leaves today!

Miles

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 12:09

Morag:

I still stand by my argument that a person can still take correct positions in other areas without a knowledge of the language.

Of course, that depends.

If the person you are talking about has been translated faithfully, you might just get away with it, providing you also understand the culture they derive from, their history, and so on.

Otherwise not.

[This is just Lenin's point about taking an all-round view of things, and to do that you need to know a lot about Shiite culture, Arabic, M East history, etc. Now you might very well know all this, but that is not 'experience', which is all that the 'Emperor' was saying.]

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 12:11

Miles, once again, you take a cavalier, and in this case, wholly prejudicial view of other's posts:

In this debate, generally speaking, we see the self-described "Leninists" chanting, "Rah! Rah! Hezbollah!" (complete with HB avatars and smarmy quotes in their signature lines), and the "anti-Leninists" (anarchists, left-communists, etc.) pointing out the reactionary character of Hizb'allah and similar movements (with the main exceptions to the latter being Severian, who sees himself as a "Leninist", and me, who doesn't fit into any of the 20th century doctrines).

You'd moan (as indeed you do) when others misread you in like manner.

Why then do you do it in return?

[I note, however, your ossification of Lenin's words into eternally true statements, something he would have been the first to have criticised.]

Martin Blank

29th August 2006, 12:57

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Aug 29 2006, 04:12 AM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Aug 29 2006, 04:12 AM)Miles, once again, you take a cavalier, and in this case, wholly prejudicial view of other's posts:[/b]

I will plead guilty to being wholly prejudicial in this debate. I am prejudiced in favor of the working class, as I am in all discussions, and against the bourgeoisie, its ideology and its agents (conscious or not, willing or not).

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 04:12 AM
You'd moan (as indeed you do) when others misread you in like manner.

Why then do you do it in return?

The only "moaning" here is your own -- like a bear caught in a trap.

Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 04:12 AM
[I note, however, your ossification of Lenin's words into eternally true statements, something he would have been the first to have criticised.]

And if you can provide some proof that the material conditions have qualitatively changed in opposition to Lenin's analysis -- i.e., have not strengthened, but weakened, his argument -- then I will change my view. But I don't think you can make that point.

Miles

Leo

29th August 2006, 13:25

I mean, if we take what Lenin said was his view on the subject, and not what Trotsky or Stalin or any other self-described "Leninist" said was Lenin's view, then it appears that the "anti-Leninists" -- the anarchists, the left-communists, etc. -- are more in tune with Lenin than the "Leninists" in this discussion, and the "Leninists" are playing the role that Lenin ascribed to Social-Democracy: supporting bourgeois-reformist movements that are nevertheless in accord with imperialism on the question of suppressing real revolutionary organizing.

Well, as for the Anarchists, they are on both sides, some (fake anarchists) supporting the Hizbullah, some (real or communist anarchists) take a class based perspective and oppose both Hizbullah and Israel, and I am pretty sure I saw some anarcihsts supporting the zionists. As for left-communists, being close to Lenin's analysis on this is not suprising, as left communists don't but that "OMG Lenin eats babies" bullshit as they don't buy "everything Lenin said were right" bullshit. Lenin was of course right when he said "turn the imperialist war into civil war". Lenin was right to try to break himself from social democrats. Of course, there were many things Lenin was wrong on (especially his shocking ideas on national self determination) but in this situation, Lenin would, of course oppose Hizbullah as much as he would have opposed Israel, this is not a really hard choice, it doesn't take someone to be theoretically superior. Lenin was a sincere proletarian revolutionary, and by itself this is enough to oppose both Hizbullah and Israel.

Also, I don't think it is really necessary to have an interview with Lenin to justify opposition to Hizbullah and Israel, but the confusion pro-Hizbullah Stalinist/Trotskyists will get does make me smile in such a horrible day.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 14:07

Miles, honesty at last:

I will plead guilty to being wholly prejudicial in this debate.

I am prejudiced in favor of the working class, as I am in all discussions, and against the bourgeoisie, its ideology and its agents (conscious or not, willing or not).

Then why do you accept a ruling-class theory like dialectical materialism?

The only "moaning" here is your own -- like a bear caught in a trap.

Can't you even think of your own insults?

And if you can provide some proof that the material conditions have qualitatively changed in opposition to Lenin's analysis -- i.e., have not strengthened, but weakened, his argument -- then I will change my view. But I don't think you can make that point.

How do you know? [And I suspect that even if I were to do that, you'd stay the same, or moan some more.]

The idea that the world, let alone the Middle East, has not 'qualitatively' changed since the 1920's is too absurd to merit serious attention.

Is this 'response' of yours the sad result of too much 'diabolocal logic', Miles?

Or not enough?

Global_Justice

29th August 2006, 14:28

question, do hizbollah want to destroy israel? or just drive them out of lebonese land?

Martin Blank

29th August 2006, 16:00

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Aug 29 2006, 06:08 AM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Aug 29 2006, 06:08 AM)Then why do you accept a ruling-class theory like dialectical materialism?[/b]

Because, from where I'm standing, only purveyors of bourgeois ideology -- you, RedTsar, ComradeRed -- are calling it a "ruling-class theory".

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 06:08 AM
Can't you even think of your own insults?

You're not worth the extra effort. (You wanted honesty....)

Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 06:08 AM
The idea that the world, let alone the Middle East, has not 'qualitatively' changed since the 1920's is too absurd to merit serious attention.

Is this 'response' of yours the sad result of too much 'diabolocal logic', Miles?

Or not enough?

You dodged the question. I should have just left you in the trap. But, oh no! I had to be nice and give you an "out" -- allow you the opportunity to make a salient point, or even to convince me of your position. Instead, it's another series of cluck-and-cover one-liners from the Mad Queen of Metaphysics. (That insult is a freebie.)

Let me know when you decide to condescend to respond to one of us proles, your highness.

Miles

Martin Blank

29th August 2006, 16:05

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 29 2006, 05:26 AM
Also, I don't think it is really necessary to have an interview with Lenin to justify opposition to Hizbullah and Israel, but the confusion pro-Hizbullah Stalinist/Trotskyists will get does make me smile in such a horrible day.
Well, that was the point, Leo. Nice to know I could bring a smile into your day.

Miles

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 18:32

Miles:

Because, from where I'm standing, only purveyors of bourgeois ideology -- you, RedTsar, ComradeRed -- are calling it a "ruling-class theory". Bold emphasis added.

So, in response to this question:

Then why do you accept a ruling-class theory like dialectical materialism?

You return with a because -- in other words, implying you accept that it is a ruling class theory, even if other alleged bourgeois posters say the same.

Why else use a 'because' in reply to such a question?

You really dropped yourself in it this time, Miles!

As I suggested, your devotion to Hegel's mystical logic has seriously compromised your abilty to handle complex inferences.

You're not worth the extra effort.

What? Over and above your reading all my essays, as you 'said' you did on a different thread? All 600, 000 words?

You have a very odd idea of what constitutes 'extra effort'!

You dodged the question.

I am learning from you, the master.

I know I can never aspire to your level of dissembling, but with you as my exemplar, I might get to within 1% of your well-honed expertise.

But, oh no! I had to be nice and give you an "out" -- allow you the opportunity to make a salient point, or even to convince me of your position. Instead, it's another series of cluck-and-cover one-liners from the Mad Queen of Metaphysics. (That insult is a freebie.)

So, I am worth the extra effort to insult me, something you denied of me earlier?

Now how am I going to believe a word to you say if you contradict yourself like this?

Let me know when you decide to condescend to respond to one of us proles, your highness.

You do not sound like much of a communist using such language. I hope your comrades in the CL slap you about a bit for this level of obsequiousness.

Tut, tut, Miles.

Get off your knees, comrade!

Martin Blank

30th August 2006, 04:03

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Aug 29 2006, 10:33 AM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Aug 29 2006, 10:33 AM)Why else use a 'because' in reply to such a question?[/b]

You're parsing words. Yet more proof of your metaphysical sophistry.

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 10:33 AM
What? Over and above your reading all my essays, as you 'said' you did on a different thread? All 600, 000 words?

You have a very odd idea of what constitutes 'extra effort'!

Unlike reading and thinking about your metaphysical drivel, coming up with a good insult requires a measure of creativity. You rubbish only requires a grain of salt.

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 10:33 AM
So, I am worth the extra effort to insult me, something you denied of me earlier?

That one just flowed naturally, without much of any creative process behind it, which is why you got it for free.

Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 10:33 AM
Tut, tut, Miles.

Get off your knees, comrade!

From the parapets of the Ivory Tower, it only looks like I'm on my knees, your highness.

Miles

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th August 2006, 05:52

Miles, embarrassed at having been caught out, reaches for yet more tired jargon (can't you even invent new jargon??):

You're parsing words. Yet more proof of your metaphysical sophistry.

On the contrary, merely exposing sloppy thought on your part.

No 'parsing' (what? Where did I split what you said into nouns, verbs and adjectives?) needed.

Just read what you posted; you accidentally conceded that you accepted a ruling-class theory.

No wonder you are on your knees.

Unlike reading and thinking about your metaphysical drivel, coming up with a good insult requires a measure of creativity. Your rubbish only requires a grain of salt.

Still, you said I wasn't worth you spending the effort on finding a new insult for me, then you promplty did it.

That one just flowed naturally, without much of any creative process behind it, which is why you got it for free.

So, why did you say earlier, when I noted your incapacity to invent new insults, that I wasn't worth the effort, if you now admit it is no effort after all?

However, you twist and turn, you dropped yourself in it again.

More grovelling:

From the parapets of the Ivory Tower, it only looks like I'm on my knees, your highness.

I wonder if this will appear in this week's "The Wanker", er sorry, "The Worker"?

It will liven it up a little.

Martin Blank

30th August 2006, 07:18

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Aug 29 2006, 09:53 PM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Aug 29 2006, 09:53 PM)Where did I split what you said into nouns, verbs and adjectives?[/b]

Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 09:53 PM
Just read what you posted; you accidentally conceded that you accepted a ruling-class theory.

I know what I posted. I reject the view put forward by you and the other vultures of bourgeois ideology here on RevLeft that materialist dialectics is a "ruling-class theory". That is the point you've been dodging while mincing words.

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 09:53 PM
So, why did you say earlier, when I noted your incapacity to invent new insults, that I wasn't worth the effort, if you now admit it is no effort after all?

Sometimes, the moment moves me, and insults become free-flowing. However, usually when I read your infantile scribblings, it's not the moment that moves.

Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 09:53 PM
I wonder if this will appear in this week's "The Wanker", er sorry, "The Worker"?

Big talk (well, relatively speaking) from a supporter of the Sharia Weekly.

Miles

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th August 2006, 16:15

Miles:

Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because

I thought you said I was the spam hound here?

Looks like you have knocked me off my perch.

Nice going!

I know what I posted. I reject the view put forward by you and the other vultures of bourgeois ideology here on RevLeft that materialist dialectics is a "ruling-class theory". That is the point you've been dodging while mincing words.

Your words mate; your embarrassment.

Deal with it.

Ah, you are a poet, not a 'politico':

Sometimes, the moment moves me, and insults become free-flowing. However, usually when I read your infantile scribblings, it's not the moment that moves.

So, I was worth the effort.

Fine, so long as I know.

But please stop dissembling, and on your knees too.

Big talk (well, relatively speaking) from a supporter of the Sharia Weekly.

OK, let's hear this 'big talk' then.

And do your comrades in the 'Confused League' know about your predilection for mythical muslim newspapers?

Martin Blank

30th August 2006, 18:43

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Aug 30 2006, 08:16 AM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Aug 30 2006, 08:16 AM)I thought you said I was the spam hound here?[/b]

I figured that since you seem to only read every 10th word someone writes, that I should repeat myself enough for you to notice.

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 08:16 AM
Ah, you are a poet, not a 'politico'

The best revolutionaries are. :P

Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 08:16 AM
OK, let's hear this 'big talk' then.

And do your comrades in the 'Confused League' know about your predilection for mythical muslim newspapers?

Her highness can't even tell when she's been insulted! Oh, dear, dear, dear! MadHatter2000 won't like this when he returns!

Miles