The futility of terrorism and the bankruptcy of the fundamentalists

[Mister X]

So what is Hamas, the supposed leader of Palestinian resistance to Israel, doing to defend the Palestinians? Unfortunately, their ‘resistance’ strategy is based on futile terrorist attacks on Israeli civilian targets. Since taking control of Gaza, the Islamic movement has fired hundreds of homemade rockets at the Israeli border town of Sderot. Whilst these attacks have rarely been deadly (less than 20 Israelis have been killed in such attacks since Israel removed its settlers from Gaza), they have made life miserable for the inhabitants of this poor, working-class town.
These attacks do nothing to militarily damage the regional superpower; they do however serve to harden Israeli public opinion, particularly amongst the poor workers of Sderot, who should be the Palestinians’ natural allies. Such attacks help to create a fortress mentality within Israel, encouraging its workers and poor (themselves heavily exploited by Israeli capitalism) to support ‘their’ state in its attacks against ‘the enemy’. The Israeli military can then take advantage of favourable Israeli public opinion to launch an attack. Its aim is to destroy or severely weaken Hamas, and see it replaced by something more pliant.
For its part, Hamas is primarily interested in gaining power over its own stretch of territory. The terrorist attacks on Israel are aimed at strengthening its position at the negotiating table; Hamas has already shown its willingness to accede to Israel’s demands (even going so far as to aid the Egyptian security forces in preventing Palestinians from entering Egypt via Gaza), but its support base forces it to drive a harder bargain than Fatah. This is a problem for Israel, whose dominant economic and political position will be threatened if it concedes too much.

[Mister X]

This is an excerpt of this article: http://www.marxist.com/stop-israels-massacre-in-gaza.htm

I feel it is worthy of discussion since there seems to be some people here who unconditionally support Hamas.

[DangerousMexican]

hey, I don't unconditionally support hamas. But you've gotta admit, 400+ palestinians in exchange for less than ten jews is an easy thing to get mad at.

[Mister X]

hey, I don't unconditionally support hamas. But you've gotta admit, 400+ palestinians in exchange for less than ten jews is an easy thing to get mad at.

Yes of course. But Hamas in one way or another with its poor tactics of killing innocent working class Israelis actually makes the Gaza invasion popular in Israel among the working class.

If they did not attack Israel in a terrorist manner then the Invasion would be very unpopular in Israel and the government would not have even dared to invade in my opinion. And if it did invade that would radicalize the Jewish workers.

That is my point and the point I created this thread.
I am sad and mad too and even infuriated hearing about this but I am also rational and I think of the best ways to advance the message of how reactionary Hamas is amongst the circles of the people who support it.

That is the least I can do for my part.

In the meantime I participate in actions and inform my community about the unjust invasion of Gaza. I wage a was against both the reactionary state of Israel and the reactionary Hamas.

[Wanted Man]

Yeah, and Israeli attacks also cause anti-semitic attitudes among Palestinian workers, and their election of the reactionary Hamas. But hey, I guess that doesn't matter, only Israelis matter. :rolleyes: And then some people actually claim to be more internationalist...

[Sam_b]

I think of the best ways to advance the message of how reactionary Hamas is amongst the circles of the people who support it.

Go over to Palestine then, Gaza in particular, and tell the thousands of people who now organise in the movement that they are reactionaries. Go over to Gaza and say that you are against the illegal bombardement by the Israelis and say that the democratic voice of the Palestnian people should be ignored because they are reactionaries. Your stance is laughable.


then the Invasion would be very unpopular in Israel

It is very unpopular. Look at the thousands of Arabs and Israelis that took to the streets today. Giv evidence to your statement that the siege is 'popular in Israel among the working class'.

Let's see this for what it is. You are against the right of resistance for Palestinian people against an oppressor force under your veiled right-wing argument.

[Pogue]

Although I disagree with Hamas the support they receive is understandable. The leaders of states of the world neglect Palestine, with most governments openly supporting Israel, and the struggle of all our brave comrades there (and around the world in the cause) is a tough one. Although ideologically I prefer Fatah, Hamas come across to everyone as the more radical, 'tougher' group, and seeing as they were elected in free and democratic elections they have popular support. The Palestinians have very little to rely on and Hamas seems to be pretty much all they have out there. Of course they have international solidarity from all socialists in the world, but Hamas in there organisation there and it puts up a strong face agaisnt Israeli aggression. Oncemore, its understandable why they support Hamas. I'd rather they didn't, by which I mean I'd rather they were all revolutionary socialists under some sort of socialist federation fighting Israel from an Internatinalist socialist perspective, but thats not the case. You can't criticise the people for rallying behind whats basically all they have left, especially when they elected that group.

[BobKKKindle$]

If they did not attack Israel in a terrorist manner

What makes you think that attacks organized by Hamas and the Palestinian resistance movement as a whole are "terrorist" and qualitatively different from the attacks of the IDF, which involve modern military technology including tanks and jet fighters? Hamas has been forced to resort to Qassam rockets because they have no other means of resisting occupation and fighting against the Israeli state, and yet since the eruption of open hostilities between Hamas and Israel only four people have been killed as a result of rocket attacks - this exposes the Israeli attack as completely unjustifiable because so far the Israelis have killed more than four hundred Palestinians through air strikes, of whom at least one hundred have no connection with Hamas whatsoever, and more Palestinians will be killed in the near future given that Israel has now expanded military operations to include a ground assault involving 10,000 Israeli troops and hundreds of tanks massed on the border with Gaza. Despite the widespread image of Hamas as a radical movement which seeks to completely destroy Israel and carry out attacks against the Jewish population of the Levant, Hamas has repeatedly offered to enter into a peace treaty with Israel and even recognize Israel's right to exist on the condition that Israel agrees to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders and accept the formation of an independent and economically viable Palestinian state. As one would expect from a state which has expanded its territory through military conquest and currently maintains a brutal system of occupation, Israel has refused to make basic concessions, and has instead promoted the illussion that the ongoing military campaign is being undertaken as a morally justified response to rocket attacks, but in reality the invasion was planned six months in advance (source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/29/israel-attack-hamas-preparations-repercussions)) and is designed to eliminate Hamas, as the democratically-elected government of the people of Gaza, and an important section of the resistance.

Revolutionary socialists support rocket attacks as a legitimate act of resistance and fight alongside Hamas, because we recognize the right of all oppressed people to resist imperialism, and the progressive character of all anti-imperialist struggles.

Victory to the intifada!

[Sam_b]

Although ideologically I prefer Fatah

You prefer an organisation that has been conspiring with the US and the Palestinian authority, behind the backs of Hamas, and tried to overthrow the group after being demcrtically elected in Gaza?

As usual on the subject of imperialism, Bob is right.

[Mister X]

Yeah, and Israeli attacks also cause anti-semitic attitudes among Palestinian workers, and their election of the reactionary Hamas. But hey, I guess that doesn't matter, only Israelis matter. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif And then some people actually claim to be more internationalist...

Well this is an excerpt. If you read the whole article there are more criticisms about Israel than Hamas. I just thought of posting this thread because I saw some posts talking about support for Hamas.



Go over to Palestine then, Gaza in particular, and tell the thousands of people who now organise in the movement that they are reactionaries. Go over to Gaza and say that you are against the illegal bombardement by the Israelis and say that the democratic voice of the Palestnian people should be ignored because they are reactionaries. Your stance is laughable.

I would go but this would be the last act I would do before I died.
If you think that Hamas is progressive go to the Trade-Union that was raided by Hamas and to the terrorized workers . They will laugh at your face.
Seriously this support for the fundamentalists even though they are the victims now is laughable.



It is very unpopular. Look at the thousands of Arabs and Israelis that took to the streets today. Giv evidence to your statement that the siege is 'popular in Israel among the working class'.

Let's see this for what it is. You are against the right of resistance for Palestinian people against an oppressor force under your veiled right-wing argument.

81% of the Jewish people support the attack on Gaza. These are official statistics.


With this thread I only wanted to expose how reactionary is Hamas after so many threads about how reactionary Israel is came up. Of course I think that Israel is more reactionary than Hamas. It was just only to bring the idea out. Please do not confuse me with a zionist or a supporter of this war. Thank you and I won't argue about it anymore because it is overwhelming to have to argue with 5 people at the same time.

[Mister X]

What makes you think that attacks organized by Hamas and the Palestinian resistance movement as a whole are "terrorist" and qualitatively different from the attacks of the IDF, which involve modern military technology including tanks and jet fighters? Hamas has been forced to resort to Qassam rockets because they have no other means of resisting occupation and fighting against the Israeli state, and yet since the eruption of open hostilities between Hamas and Israel only four people have been killed as a result of rocket attacks - this exposes the Israeli attack as completely unjustifiable because so far the Israelis have killed more than four hundred Palestinians through air strikes, of whom at least one hundred have no connection with Hamas whatsoever, and more Palestinians will be killed in the near future given that Israel has now expanded military operations to include a ground assault involving 10,000 Israeli troops and hundreds of tanks massed on the border with Gaza. Despite the widespread image of Hamas as a radical movement which seeks to completely destroy Israel and carry out attacks against the Jewish population of the Levant, Hamas has repeatedly offered to enter into a peace treaty with Israel and even recognize Israel's right to exist on the condition that Israel agrees to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders and accept the formation of an independent and economically viable Palestinian state. As one would expect from a state which has expanded its territory through military conquest and currently maintains a brutal system of occupation, Israel has refused to make basic concessions, and has instead promoted the illussion that the ongoing military campaign is being undertaken as a morally justified response to rocket attacks, but in reality the invasion was planned six months in advance (source (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/29/israel-attack-hamas-preparations-repercussions)) and is designed to eliminate Hamas, as the democratically-elected government of the people of Gaza, and an important section of the resistance.One last response. As I previously said I do not support Israel and I think it is reactionary. I ve attacked it before and I do not hesitate to attack it now. This thread though is about Hamas not Israel. We all know about Israel its time we learn about Hamas.



Revolutionary socialists support rocket attacks as a legitimate act of resistance and fight alongside Hamas, because we recognize the right of all oppressed people to resist imperialism, and the progressive character of all anti-imperialist struggles.
No , killing Jewish workers is not a legitimate act and drives the public opinion against Palestine.
Of course the crimes commited by Israel are 1000 times more horrific but the attacks of Hamas against Israel actualy help Israel not the cause.

[Sam_b]

Seriously this support for the fundamentalists even though they are the victims now is laughable.


This is bollocks, showing you know nothing about the organisation of Hamas or any of its structures. Who are Hamas? The Palestinian people, thats who. Do Palestinian people not have a right to resist occupation any more?


81% of the Jewish people support the attack on Gaza. These are official statistics.


If they are official, show me.

[Mister X]

This is bollocks, showing you know nothing about the organisation of Hamas or any of its structures. Who are Hamas? The Palestinian people, thats who. Do Palestinian people not have a right to resist occupation any more?

No not all Palestinian people support Hamas. Even if some do, a lot of them do it as they see it as a way to resist Israeli attacks. The analogy is that " hey most people think Obama is hope, therefore he is!" or " America is Bush since most people support Bush (since he got elected)".

Your argument is clearly baseless. Hamas is a reactionary organization which stormed Palestinian Trade-Union offices and prosecuted trade unionists. They are Muslim fundamentalists as well.


If they are official, show me.

I m trying to find them right now , I will post a source when i find it. In fact I hear it on national TV.

[Sam_b]

The analogy is that " hey most people think Obama is hope, therefore he is!" or " America is Bush since most people support Bush (since he got elected)".

This is a false comparison. People are flocking to Hamas not because they say they are going to fight back or bring change, but because they are fighting back.

So, let's get back to it. Do you support the right of Palestinians to resist their occupation?

See my post in the events thread and actually respond the the real arguments. Rather than the use of right-wing terms. Your rhetoric is no different to that of the far-right's idea of 'Muslim fundamentalism'.

[Mister X]

So, let's get back to it. Do you support the right of Palestinians to resist their occupation?

Of course I do but I don't support Hamas's methods and I think that they are reactionary. Am I not entitled to think that as a Marxist?
Does that make me a Pro-Israeli and a zionist in your books?
I repeatedly said that Israel is more reactionary than Hamas and that I support the Palestinian people, what I don't support is Hamas, its methods and its ideas. That's all.

[BobKKKindle$]

This thread though is about Hamas not Israel.Any discussion of Hamas requires us to examine Israel, because Israel's policies in relation to the Palestinian people have created and currently sustain a resistance movement which would not otherwise have any reason to exist, and, specifically in the case of Hamas, Israel originally gave material and financial support to Hamas in order to create a religious counterbalance to the PLO, which was dominated by secular forces such as the PFLP. You insist on asserting that rockets attacks are directed against people living in the south of Israel are bad because they create popular opposition to the Palestinian cause, and yet you have provided no evidence to support this and also ignore the fact that, having no access to military hardware, these attacks are the only way the people of Palestine can express their opposition to occupation and draw attention to their grievances. You are essentially arguing that, instead of exercising their right to resist, Palestinians should accept the ongoing economic blockade and occupation, and should rely on the Israeli state to grant concessions, and treat them fairly. When has any oppressor state voluntarily relinquished control of an exploited population because they have agreed to behave and not use force to assert their demands?

You have repeatedly used the term "fundamentalist" to describe Hamas. This is absurd because this category is so broad that it could plausibly be used to refer to a whole range of different organizations and movements, all of which have different aims and objectives. Hamas is not the same as Al-Qaeda or the Taleban.

[Mister X]

You have repeatedly used the term "fundamentalist" to describe Hamas. This is absurd because this category is so abroad that it could plausibly be used to refer to a whole range of different organizations and movements, all of which have different aims and objectives. Hamas is not the same as Al-Qaeda or the Taleban.They are fundamentalists although yes they are not the same as the Taliban.
Just like I am a socialist but I am not the same as a Maoist.



Any discussion of Hamas requires us to examine Israel, because Israel's policies in relation to the Palestinian people have created and currently sustain a resistance movement which would not otherwise have any reason to exist, and, specifically in the case of Hamas, Israel originally gave material and financial support to Hamas in order to create a religious counterbalance to the PLO, which was dominated by secular forces such as the PFLP. You insist on asserting that rockets attacks are directed against people living in the south of Israel are bad because they create popular opposition to the Palestinian cause, and yet you have provided no evidence to support this and also ignore the fact that, having no access to military hardware, these attacks are the only way the people of Palestine can express their opposition to occupation and draw attention to their grievances. You are essentially arguing that, instead of exercising their right to resist, Palestinians should accept the ongoing economic blockade and occupation, and should rely on the Israeli state to grant concessions, and treat them fairly. When has any oppressor state voluntarily relinquished control of an exploited population because they have agreed to behave and not use force to assert their demands?You are right that an examination of Hamas requires an examination of Israel.
When I said that though I meant that I created this thread about Hamas and to examine what Hamas did . Of course you are entitled to remind us what Israel did , I did not do so because it would consume a lot of time and besides we all know what Israel has done.


Killing innocent civilians which are fellow workers is not a legitimate way of response to Israeli war crimes though. If Hamas drove a car full of explosives for example in an Israeli military camp I would not criticize Hamas for that.
It might bring attention to what is happening or to the oppression of Israel but that would be negative attention and reasons for the Jewish proletariat to support the interventions.

I am not willing to debate this anymore though so you can go on as much as you want . I think I made my position about Hamas and Israel very clear.

[Sam_b]

I am not willing to debate this anymore

Because you are losing.

Define what you mean as a 'fundamentalist'.

[Mister X]

Because you are losing.

In your opinion. No I am stopping because I have to debate with 2-3 people at the same time , when one of them writes huge paragraphs that are hardly readable and I don't have time/energy for that.


Define what you mean as a 'fundamentalist'.

Any muslim fanatic .
Note that all of them are anti worker.

Ok this is it , I am not responding to anything more.

[Sam_b]

Any muslim fanatic

You're just using loaded words that have several interpretations.

Define 'Muslim fanatic'.

[Mister X]

Ok just to end this
fundamentalism: strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles

To argue that Hamas are not fundamentalists is harder than to argue that God exists.

[Sam_b]

strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles

So that actually makes no sense. Is this supposed then to be a bad definition? Does that make me a 'socialist fundamentalist' because i'm a Marxist?

We're making headway now. You cannot be a 'half-Muslim', you are either a follower of Islam or you're not. Thus you must either, by your definition, call the millions of people who follow the faith 'fundamentalists'. Thus your definition is screwed. Does this mean that you are fishing for a bad word to try and describe Hamas, where ther ereally is no substance?

Define better than that. I can't argue against a term that technically has no meaning.

[Mister X]

Ok then make another thread talking about the meaning of the word fundamentalists and if Hamas fits the description.

[Sam_b]

It doesn't. The onus is on you to back up your claim with a definition. I'm not saying that Hamas are 'fundamentalist'. If you can't back it up you can't argue for it.

[Mister X]

The leadership of Hamas and Hamas as an organization are strict Muslims.
They fight in the name of Allah among other things and use Allah and the muslim religion in order to get support from the population(among other things). That makes them muslim fundamentalists.
And yes I am a Marxist fundamentalist! (Although I don't see Marx as God)

[Lynx]

Hamas is the foil of the imperialist state of Israel. After nearly 50 years of stagnation, I am unwilling to support the dead end reactionary policies of Hamas. Don't mistake condemnation of Israeli aggression as support for Hamas.

[Mister X]

Hamas is the foil of the imperialist state of Israel. After nearly 50 years of stagnation, I am unwilling to support the dead end reactionary policies of Hamas. Don't mistake condemnation of Israeli aggression as support for Hamas.



That is my view as well. It seems though that some people (proof is the discussion in this thread) think that Hamas is not reactionary and support it unconditionaly.

[Sam_b]

They fight in the name of Allah among other things

Prove this.

[Mister X]

Prove this.
In The Name Of The Most Merciful Allah
Introduction
Praise be unto Allah, to whom we resort for help, and whose forgiveness, guidance and support we seek; Allah bless the Prophet and grant him salvation, his companions and supporters, and to those who carried out his message and adopted his laws - everlasting prayers and salvation as long as the earth and heaven will last. Hereafter:
O People:
Out of the midst of troubles and the sea of suffering, out of the palpitations of faithful hearts and cleansed arms; out of the sense of duty, and in response to Allah's command, the call has gone out rallying people together and making them follow the ways of Allah, leading them to have determined will in order to fulfill their role in life, to overcome all obstacles, and surmount the difficulties on the way. Constant preparation has continued and so has the readiness to sacrifice life and all that is precious for the sake of Allah.
Thus it was that the nucleus (of the movement) was formed and started to pave its way through the tempestuous sea of hopes and expectations, of wishes and yearnings, of troubles and obstacles, of pain and challenges, both inside and outside.
When the idea was ripe, the seed grew and the plant struck root in the soil of reality, away from passing emotions, and hateful haste. The Islamic Resistance Movement emerged to carry out its role through striving for the sake of its Creator, its arms intertwined with those of all the fighters for the liberation of Palestine. The spirits of its fighters meet with the spirits of all the fighters who have sacrificed their lives on the soil of Palestine, ever since it was conquered by the companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, and until this day.
This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.
Thus we see them coming on the horizon "and you shall learn about it hereafter" "Allah hath written, Verily I will prevail, and my apostles: for Allah is strong and mighty." (The Dispute - verse 21).
"Say to them, This is my way: I invite you to Allah, by an evident demonstration; both I and he who followeth me; and, praise be unto Allah! I am not an idolator." (Joseph - verse 107).





Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp


Now that I proved the obvious can you please stop bothering me with your non-sense?

[Sam_b]

You haven't proved anything, i'm afraid. 1988? Over twenty years ago? Before the second Intifada?

I'm afraid the goalposts for the movement have changed very much since then. And I think you'll find that the Palestinian working class, who are ogranised in and support Hamas, are fighting to protect their communities and their people first and foremost.

I'll also catch you up on your previous post as well. Show me one person in this thread that gives unconditional uncritical support to Hamas. I bet you won't find one.

I'll ask you another thing: why do you regard movements like Hamas as from being above rather than being from below?

[Aurora]

http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2005/12/2008410111928749358.html

"Khaled Meshaal also praised Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, for his "courage" in having dismissed the Holocaust as a myth and calling for Israel to be moved out of the Middle East to Europe or North America."


The idea that Hamas is an organisation without any reactionary elements is complete bullshit.

[Mister X]

You haven't proved anything, i'm afraid. 1988? Over twenty years ago? Before the second Intifada?

I'm afraid the goalposts for the movement have changed very much since then. And I think you'll find that the Palestinian working class, who are ogranised in and support Hamas, are fighting to protect their communities and their people first and foremost.

Prove that with articles from Hamas itself.



I'll also catch you up on your previous post as well. Show me one person in this thread that gives unconditional uncritical support to Hamas. I bet you won't find one.

You so far. In your analysis you didn't mention anything wrong with Hamas.
Unless you do so now.



I'll ask you another thing: why do you regard movements like Hamas as from being above rather than being from below?

I'll never said that.
But the people that go to Hamas , do so because there is no alternative and of course as a response to objective material conditions. I am not a fool to believe otherwise.
The thing is that even though it is a popular organization it has reactionary ideas. Not all popular movements are progressive.

Only opportunists think that way and I am getting convinced that you and your organization are opportunists when I read your posts.

[DangerousMexican]

btw, did y'all hear bush actually blame the attacks on Hamas?


and people say I'm fucked up...

[DangerousMexican]

And, in a more relevant note, I personally believe it is tragic to greek levels the fact that the only way for Palestine to fight back against imperialists is to rally under medievals.
so sad...if only there was some other, smarter ideology they could follow...

[Sam_b]

The idea that Hamas is an organisation without any reactionary elements is complete bullshit.

I agree. Who is arguing that, exactly?


Prove that with articles from Hamas itself

Well I can't read Arabic and don't know if there are any archives, but here are a few sources that I found to be interesting. Hamas' leadership, which I will openly criticise, will undoubtedly make the same claims I will, but I imagine you would claim an alterior motive.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/02/world/fg-charity2 - Evidence that Palestinians see Hamas as being more effective in health and social provision.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1151969,00.html - Yet more evidence that Palestinian people are flocking to Hamas because of what it is doing, rather than any perceived idea of a 'fundamentalist Muslim' war.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/256.pdf - Pew Research Centre's study into approval ratings of Hamas, favoured by over 60% of Palestinians. [Remember that Palestine also has a significant and vocal Christian population].


But the people that go to Hamas , do so because there is no alternative and of course as a response to objective material conditions. I am not a fool to believe otherwise.


Exactly. Our party would not call for valuable time and resources to be made into a separate organisation at a time of attack, and I would argue that this would weaken resistance itself (look at the splits that have happened between the Iraqi Resistance, for example).
The left movement cannot discount national liberation struggles and to do show shows a profound lack of understanding. We do not and should not see the future of Palestine, post-imperialism, as being Hamas. However, the banner is not important here (we of course oppose the leadership and the reactionary elements within) as fundamentally we support the Palestinian working class and their organisation within this group, and will continue to support their resistance. I can't make it clearer than that.

The danger I see here is that you are ecquating the Hamas leadership with the whole organisation. The leadership are not on the frontline and are not leading the resistance struggle. Working people are.

[Devrim]

And I think you'll find that the Palestinian working class, who are ogranised in and support Hamas, are fighting to protect their communities and their people first and foremost.

I would say that the base of HAMAS is not the working class. There support mainly comes from the Middle classes and the urban poor. I think that this is reasonably well documented.

However, even if the working class was organised in HAMAS it wouldn't prove anything. The majority of the German working class was organised in the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, and much of it supported Hitler, and were fighting to protect Germany, and their 'volk'.

All that proves is that workers can be manipulated by bourgoies parties.

Devrim

[Mister X]

I would say that the base of HAMAS is not the working class. There support mainly comes from the Middle classes and the urban poor. I think that this is reasonably well documented.

However, even if the working class was organised in HAMAS it wouldn't prove anything. The majority of the German working class was organised in the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, and much of it supported Hitler, and were fighting to protect Germany, and their 'volk'.

All that proves is that workers can be manipulated by bourgoies parties.Another excellent comment by Devrim at I time that I thought that people on this site support the reactionaries of Hamas after this storm of angry replies I got to this thread.

I will be replaying to Sam's comments shortly.

[Devrim]

We're making headway now. You cannot be a 'half-Muslim', you are either a follower of Islam or you're not. Thus you must either, by your definition, call the millions of people who follow the faith 'fundamentalists'. Thus your definition is screwed. Does this mean that you are fishing for a bad word to try and describe Hamas, where ther ereally is no substance?

Define better than that. I can't argue against a term that technically has no meaning.

This argument has no basis in reality. Of course you can not be 'half-Muslim', but you can be the sort of Muslim who believes in God, but never goes to the Mosque, and goes to the pub on Friday.

Likewise fundamentalist does have a real meaning and everybody is aware that HAMAS is a fundamentalist party.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Show me one person in this thread that gives unconditional uncritical support to Hamas. I bet you won't find one.

Support is support.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

To describe Hamas as a "medieval" organization is a deeply reactionary position because it infers that the majority of Palestinians and especially those who are part of Hamas view the world in a "medieval" way when, in reality, the exact opposite is true - although Hamas is an islamist organization the leadership has consistently proved that it is willing to listen to the concerns and demands of groups which have traditionally suffered oppression at the hands of religious extremists, especially women, as shown by the fact that Hamas currently has six female MPs, and, despite strong opposition from conservative (and, somewhat surprisingly, secular) forces, is currently attempting to change marriage laws in order to ensure that women are able to demand any conditions as part of a marriage contract and are not unjustly persecuted if they commit adultery (Women MPs vow to change face of Hamas - Guardian, 2006 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/18/israel.islam)) This does not mean that Hamas is generally progressive in its ideological outlook (as distinct from its role as the leading force of the Palestinian resistance) but it does mean that we cannot simply dismiss Hamas as "medieval" and should instead be aware of internal ideological conflicts and multiple political currents.

[politics student]

Yeah, and Israeli attacks also cause anti-semitic attitudes among Palestinian workers, and their election of the reactionary Hamas. But hey, I guess that doesn't matter, only Israelis matter. :rolleyes: And then some people actually claim to be more internationalist...

The anti semitic excuse is driving me up the wall. I have seen a forum member on the Richard Dawkins forum argue that its ok that the palistines are suffering its a fair response and anyone arguing against here, also negitive news sources (the BBC being one of the) are just anti semitic.

[benhur]

Hamas is reactionary, and as socialists, we can't offer any type of support to reactionaries, not even moral support because that'll ruin our image, thereby antagonizing many people who might otherwise sympathize with socialists. Conditional (and critical) support is a meaningless term in this instance.

Will you also offer such conditional support to white nationalists, in case they're at the receiving end? This blind support to anything/anyone anti-Israel makes us look anti-semitic to many, many people.

But I know it's useless to raise such questions, because Sam will come up with various non-issues, and Bob with his huge, dull, boring paragraphs to cure me of my insomnia.;)

[Wanted Man]

But I know it's useless to raise such questions, because Sam will come up with various non-issues, and Bob with his huge, dull, boring paragraphs to cure me of my insomnia.;)
And people with less patience will say: "Get off our forums, you shitty zionist troll."

[Enragé]

Hamas is reactionary, and as socialists, we can't offer any type of support to reactionaries, not even moral support because that'll ruin our image

So.. we should only do things that look good to others? Opportunist.

Also, 10.000 took to the streets yesterday on THREE DAYS NOTICE in amsterdam in against the israeli attack and in support of the resistance. Who are you trying to appease? Our image according to whom are you talking about?


Will you also offer such conditional support to white nationalists, in case they're at the receiving end?

Comparing hamas to nazis/white supremacists is nonsensical. Hamas has the support of 60% of the people simply because they have continued the resistance, and have built hospitals, schools, etc. Not to mention they were elected democratically (yet Israel still claims to be the only democracy). Read the Prophet and the Proletariate by Chris Harman for a marxist analysis of political islam http://www.marxists.de/religion/harman/index.htm.


This blind support to anything/anyone anti-Israel makes us look anti-semitic to many, many people.


Then we have to explain we are anti-zionist, not anti-semitic. You have to realize that Israel continually plays the card of anti-semitism when someone criticises them.. is what you are saying that we should stop criticizing israel?

Also, nobody is blindly supporting hamas for fuck sake.

[Pogue]

You prefer an organisation that has been conspiring with the US and the Palestinian authority, behind the backs of Hamas, and tried to overthrow the group after being demcrtically elected in Gaza?

As usual on the subject of imperialism, Bob is right.

I don't understand how you could quote that statement and still give such an ignorant comment on it. Did you not see the word ideologically? I agree with Socialism more than I do with Hamas's ideology. Thats why I said ideologically. The clue is in what I wrote, if you'd just think.

[Post-Something]

Hamas is reactionary, and as socialists, we can't offer any type of support to reactionaries, not even moral support because that'll ruin our image, thereby antagonizing many people who might otherwise sympathize with socialists. Conditional (and critical) support is a meaningless term in this instance.

Will you also offer such conditional support to white nationalists, in case they're at the receiving end? This blind support to anything/anyone anti-Israel makes us look anti-semitic to many, many people.

But I know it's useless to raise such questions, because Sam will come up with various non-issues, and Bob with his huge, dull, boring paragraphs to cure me of my insomnia.;)

I don't mean to butt in on the debate, but I think you're missing the point of the argument. Imperialist domination must be overthrown for a revolution to happen. Therefore it is necessary that we support resistence movements in their fight against imperialism, even if they would otherwise be reactionary. Not to support them would be de facto support for the imperialists. Otherwise the revolution would occur much, much later; if ever.

However, nobody in this thread is "blindly supporting" anyone.

Anyway, very interesting thread.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hamas is reactionary

So are national liberation struggles.

[BobKKKindle$]

Hamas is reactionary, and as socialists, we can't offer any type of support to reactionaries, not even moral support because that'll ruin our imageThis is exactly the kind of approach that both Marx and Lenin would have argued against - you're saying that we should not give support to Hamas because it will lead to Israeli workers as well as workers of other imperialist countries being offended, due to the strength of nationalist ideology, especially Zionism is the context of Israel, which legitimizes imperialism and obscures the fundamental importance of class antagonisms. Revolutionary socialists give unconditional military support to movements fighting against imperialism such as Hamas even when we do not sympathize with all of the political objectives of these movements partly because we acknowledge the right of all oppressed peoples to fight against occupation and establish their own independent states as a precondition for socialist revolution, but also because we seek to break down the ideological barriers to class consciousness within the imperialist bloc amongst workers who are currently tied to their own national bourgeoisie. How can socialists living in Israel claim to be genuine internationalists if they tolerate a brutal system of national oppression and refuse to support the struggles of the Palestinian people against imperialism? This is the point Lenin what trying to make when he wrote the following in 1916:


The proletariat cannot but fight against the forcible retention of the oppressed nations within the boundaries of a given state, and this is exactly what the struggle for the right of self-determination means. The proletariat must demand the right of political secession for the colonies and for the nations that “its own” nation oppresses. Unless it does this, proletarian internationalism will remain a meaningless phrase; mutual confidence and class solidarity between the workers of the oppressing and oppressed nations will be impossible; the hypocrisy of the reformist and Kautskyan advocates of self-determination who maintain silence about the nations which are oppressed by “their” nation and forcibly retained within “their” state will remain unexposed. The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 4. The Proletarian-Revolutionary Presentation of the Question of the Self-Determination of Nations (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm)

For Lenin, and all other revolutionary socialists, support for struggles against imperialism is not about abandoning the cause of proletarian internationalism, or postponing the overthrow of capitalism, but springs directly from the political tasks facing socialists in both oppressed nations (e.g. Palestine) and nations conducting imperialist oppression. Your concern for our "image" is a bogus argument, because the role of socialists is not simply to pander to the most dominant political and social prejudices in a society, instead we seek to change the way people view the world, and fight against false perceptions, including the characterization of Hamas as anti-semitic, which is a terrible falsehood, as has already been shown in this thread.

Your assertion that Hamas is "reactionary" has already been criticized in this thread, as myself and other posters have already shown that Hamas was democratically elected as the legitimate government of the Palestinian people, and has actively supported working-class Palestinians, but you seem to understand "reactionary" as meaning any political movement which is not completely socialist in its ideological outlook. You ignore the fact that Marx enthusiastically supported non-socialist organizations when the activities and aims of these organizations were progressive from the viewpoint of the working-class - for example, he celebrated bourgeois democrats in Germany seeking to establish a democracy as he recognized that constitutional limits on the exercise of governmental power would protect socialists against arbitrary persecution and allow socialists to intervene in workers struggles. The same principle is applicable in the case of national oppression - the struggle against imperialism is a progressive struggle and so socialists are willing to support and fight alongside all anti-imperialist movements. Marx also recognized this basic truth, as he gave support to petty-bourgeois organizations opposed to British imperialism in Ireland. You, on the other hand, have adopted an idealistic position which is entirely removed from the experience of the Palestinian working-class.

[Lynx]

Hamas is part of the problem. Their nationalist, militant politics offer nothing but the promise of more suffering for their people. Sure they provide important services such as schools and hospitals - that was originally the basis for their support. Having them in power though, has turned out to be tragic.

Having the right to democratically elect Hamas is having to accept the consequences of that right. I'm not going to support a reactionary government because a majority of Palestinians support it. And I'm not going to support the type of futile resistance that has led, yet again, to a showdown with the IDF. A massacre does not translate to 'resistance'.

[Sam_b]

And I'm not going to support the type of futile resistance that has led, yet again, to a showdown with the IDF. A massacre does not translate to 'resistance'

Israel broke the ceasefire. You are speaking nonsense.

[Wanted Man]

Having the right to democratically elect Hamas is having to accept the consequences of that right.
Wow. I've read a lot of reactionary bullshit about this subject on RevLeft. But I had yet to see someone trying to justify the massacre because the Palestinians made "a bad choice". Even zionist troll benhur is at least trying to sound ambivalent.

[BobKKKindle$]

Hamas is part of the problem. Their nationalist, militant politics offer nothing but the promise of more suffering for their peopleIf Hamas simply amounts to "suffering" why is it that they have been able to sustain support amongst the population of Gaza (with a 60% approval rating) and are now the leading section of the resistance to Israeli invasion? Hamas is not responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian people and everyone except you and the other members who apologize for Zionism are fully aware of this - the Israeli embargo against the Gaza strip has systematically deprived hospitals and other facilities of the basic supplies they need to care for people who have been injured as a result of Israeli attacks and prevent total economic collapse, despite the fact that Gaza already has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the world, and has suffered prolonged economic contraction in recent years. Israeli is so desperate to maintain this state of deprivation, with the intention of undermining the popularity of Hamas, that they have even rammed a boat carrying volunteers and supplies. Your understanding of democracy - that a people should be punished with violence and poverty because they choose to vote for a certain party which takes a firm stand on Israeli occupation - is shared by the Israeli state, and shows that Israel and the US are willing to destroy democracy when elected governments dare to frustrate their imperialist ambitions.


And I'm not going to support the type of futile resistance that has led, yet again, to a showdown with the IDF. A massacre does not translate to 'resistance'.How has the resistance of Hamas "led" to a "showdown"? The ongoing attack has been planned for six months even during the ceasefire because the Israeli state cannot tolerate the existence of a radical political movement which seeks, in contrast to Fatah, to fight against the historic mistreatment of the Palestinian people and assert the right of all Palestinians to live with dignity.


But I had yet to see someone trying to justify the massacre because the Palestinians made "a bad choice".

Indeed - presumabely this Zionist also believes that 9/11 was justified on the grounds that the American electorate deserves to suffer because they elected an imperialist president.

[Lynx]

If Hamas simply amounts to "suffering" why is it that they have been able to sustain support amongst the population of Gaza (with a 60% approval rating) and are now the leading section of the resistance to Israeli invasion?
They continue to provide services just as they did before they were elected to power. They were also seen as being less corrupt than Fatah. Other reasons for popularity? You tell me!

Your understanding of democracy - that a people should be punished with violence and poverty because they choose to vote for a certain party which takes a firm stand on Israeli occupation - is shared by the Israeli state, and shows that Israel and the US are willing to destroy democracy when elected governments dare to frustrate their imperialist ambitions.
Actions carry consequences. Playing a game of chicken with the implicit belief that Israel is not prepared to kill tens of thousands of people in retaliation also carries consequences. None of these things should ever be seen as justification, they are in fact, crimes, complete with perpetrators and victims. They are also predictable.

How has the resistance of Hamas "led" to a "showdown"? The ongoing attack has been planned for six months even during the ceasefire because the Israeli state cannot tolerate the existence of a radical political movement which seeks, in contrast to Fatah, to fight against the historic mistreatment of the Palestinian people and assert the right of all Palestinians to live with dignity.
Until the situation involving the rockets is resolved, these particular showdowns will continue. It doesn't really matter if a particular situation is used as an excuse or is part of a genuine grievance - the result is the same tit for tat retaliation we have seen for 40+ years.

[progressive_lefty]

The very sad situation in Palestine and Israel:

- The IDF are radicals.
- Israel controls the supply of medicine and food into Gaza and is building settlement after settlement in West Bank
- Hamas are much a problem as the IDF, their resistance involves killing civilians

In my mind, the OCCUPATION is still the big issue.

[BobKKKindle$]

They continue to provide services just as they did before they were elected to power. They were also seen as being less corrupt than Fatah. Other reasons for popularity? You tell me!If you acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to support Hamas, especially when we compare Hamas with the main political alternative, Fatah, which is not only corrupt but has also consistently given in to the demands of Israel and other imperialist states, why did you assert that living under a government led by Hamas would simply lead to "suffering" and no tangible benefits, even though this is clearly not the case?

What you and others fail to recognize is that the rockets launched by Hamas are being used as a pretext by the leadership of the Israeli state to obscure the real aims behind the most recent invasion of Gaza, such that the invasion would still have occurred even if Hamas had not organized any rocket attacks against Sderot and other cities in the south of Israel. This is shown by the fact that the invasion has been planned for six months, before rocket attacks intensified, when Israel was still negotiating a peace agreement with Hamas. The real aims of the invasion are multiple, and include a perceived need to improve the image of the current government in the eyes of the Israeli electorate, given recent political uncertainty inside Israel, and to strengthen Israel's long-term ability to maintain its position as the key imperialist power in the Middle East by undermining Hamas, as the most radical and consistent section of the Palestinian resistance. If the Israeli state was really interested in stopping violence and protecting the well-being of Israeli workers, political leaders would explore the peace agreement offered by Hamas. However, this would impede Israel's imperialist objectives, and Israel's role as the ally of the imperialist bloc, and so has always been rejected.


Hamas are much a problem as the IDF, their resistance involves killing civilians

Revolutionary socialists do not view anti-imperialist struggles through an abstract moral prism - instead we take the side of the oppressed.

[Mister X]

If Hamas simply amounts to "suffering" why is it that they have been able to sustain support amongst the population of Gaza (with a 60% approval rating) and are now the leading section of the resistance to Israeli invasion? Hamas is not responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian people and everyone except you and the other members who apologize for Zionism are fully aware of this

According to BobKindles the only those who support Hamas are against Zionism.
His logic also is whatever is popular is correct. He also presents Lenin document to prove his point , only he forgets that Lenin was writting about the right of nations to self-determination, which even if it applied at the complex situation in Israel and Palestine it still does not prove that marxists should support organizations like Hamas.
What a clear indication of how the most knowledgeable revolutionary can be blinded by his opportunist party. Instead of that bullshit I will type up a genuine Marxist analysis that I read on a pamphlet passed on by a local socialist group. I could not have said it better myself so here it goes.


"
The last election gave Hamas a large victory (in parliamentary terms, although not in terms of votes) whereas Fatah and the other groups suffered an important defeat. This victory of Hamas would not have been possible without a massive turn of the Palestinian masses both in Gaza and the West Bank against Fatah and the leaders of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) after more than a decade of extreme corruption and collaboration with imperialism and the Israeli government against their own people.
Hamas has cynically exploited this situation by using demagogic, populist language which concentrates on the struggle against corruption and the continuation of the resistance. Its promises are not limited to this world, but extend even to the "next world"!!
This means that the vote for Hamas was not a vote for its reactionary, anti-Semitic project, nor for its attitude towards women, etc., but revenge against Fatah and a vote for a change in living conditions. This makes us more conscious of the relevance of the revolutionary Marxist alternative to save the masses from alienation.
The masses can sometimes support very reactionary movements ‑ when they find themselves at an impasse, in unbearable living conditions, in the absence of a revolutionary alternative, and when the leaders of the mass organisations behave like traitors. In such cases, and since nature abhors a vacuum, it is possible that a fascist party, or something similar, takes advantage of the situation and takes power.
In such cases we must endure temporary isolation. However, the situation in Palestine is different, and more favourable, as we have already explained - the masses in Palestine voted for a reactionary party, but for progressive reasons"




Well this is as much as I could type up there is a lot more .

[Lynx]

If you acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to support Hamas, especially when we compare Hamas with the main political alternative, Fatah, which is not only corrupt but has also consistently given in to the demands of Israel and other imperialist states, why did you assert that living under a government led by Hamas would simply lead to "suffering" and no tangible benefits, even though this is clearly not the case?
Hamas need not be in power to provide social services. You asked why they enjoy support and this seems to be a likely reason. Is it the only reason? Do Palestinians support Hamas' political rhetoric and tactics? If not, Hamas can be voted out of office and returned to the role of just providing social services.

What you and others fail to recognize is that the rockets launched by Hamas are being used as a pretext by the leadership of the Israeli state to obscure the real aims behind the most recent invasion of Gaza, such that the invasion would still have occurred even if Hamas had not organized any rocket attacks against Sderot and other cities in the south of Israel. This is shown by the fact that the invasion has been planned for six months, before rocket attacks intensified, when Israel was still negotiating a peace agreement with Hamas.
Yes, Israel is using it as a pretext, but this does not alter the fact that the rocket attacks accomplished nothing.

The real aims of the invasion are multiple, and include a perceived need to improve the image of the current government in the eyes of the Israeli electorate, given recent political uncertainty inside Israel, and to strengthen Israel's long-term ability to maintain its position as the key imperialist power in the Middle East by undermining Hamas, as the most radical and consistent section of the Palestinian resistance.
I believe Israel would like to destroy Hamas if it could. As it stands, if they are unable to stop the rocket attacks, the political consensus is that would constitute a 'victory' for Hamas. This is the mentality these reactionaries embrace.

If the Israeli state was really interested in stopping violence and protecting the well-being of Israeli workers, political leaders would explore the peace agreement offered by Hamas. However, this would impede Israel's imperialist objectives, and Israel's role as the ally of the imperialist bloc, and so has always been rejected.
The only pressure that can be brought to bear in this regard is diplomatic. A war of attrition and worldwide sympathy have not helped.

Revolutionary socialists do not view anti-imperialist struggles through an abstract moral prism - instead we take the side of the oppressed.
By all means take the side of the oppressed, but don't feed them platitudes concerning their beloved Hamas.

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs:, the left is permeated by silly macho posturing and the whole idea of "dying on feet rather than living on knees". I think most palestinians would rather get the hell out of there, than follow the calls for nationhood and national defense by middle class ideologues. But sure, let the national flag be drenched by the blood of its patriots. There is absolutely nothing of gain for palestinians to throw homemade qassams, except perhaps a symbolical gesture that might make the left happy, and pit them against israeli guns.

I think real communists, as always, will call for dessertion, fraternization, or civil war. We dont call for national defense, especially of islamist reactionaries. Historically, we communists have opposed political islam even when some of us ended up against the wall because of it, and we will continue doing this without pandering to the leftovers of maoist and soviet realpolitik (i.e. anti-imperialism).


I think bashing the zionists is terribly easy and I am not going to do this here because although I agree that the israeli state is horrible, the purpose of a discussion forum is to disagree and discuss.

[KC]

So are national liberation struggles.

Not when they are linked up and turn into anti-capitalist struggles.

[ashaman1324]

Not when they are linked up and turn into anti-capitalist struggles.
?
would the struggles ever have started if they weren't reactionary? it only changes what the liberation struggles become, not that they were reactionary and i don't see how they would suddenly stop.

[KC]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[ashaman1324]

nevermind, i disagreed with your comment, then i thought about it and changed my mind.
my bad.

[BobKKKindle$]

His logic also is whatever is popular is correct. He also presents Lenin document to prove his point , only he forgets that Lenin was writting about the right of nations to self-determination..[etc]Not a single person who has posted in this thread shares the same ideological viewpoint as Hamas, as we acknowledge the fact that, despite its mass support base, Hamas is not a revolutionary organization, and has an inconsistent record on issues relating to the role of women in Palestinian society as well as the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, despite recent debates surrounding these issues. However, following Lenin's advice concerning the position socialists should adopt on the national question, we offer military (as distinct from political) support to Hamas, as the leading section of the resistance movement, and at the same time we also support the creation of a socialist organization which seeks to combine the struggle against imperialism with a struggle against all forms of social and economic oppression, including class division, and we hope that this organization will eventually be able to take the place of Hamas at some point in the future. The extract you posted was originally produced by the IMT, and, by dismissing Hamas as an "anti-semitic" and "reactionary" party fails to recognize internal differences and ongoing discussions within the movement.


Hamas can be voted out of officeExactly - and so the fact that Hamas has not been voted out of office and replaced with Fatah or any other party and still has the support of more than half the total population despite the embargo shows that a Hamas-led government has not simply resulted in "suffering", contrary to what you suggested in your original post. Even the political opposition inside Gaza has recognized that the Israeli attack will probably increase support for Hamas even if rocket attacks are diminished. Consider this comment by independent Palestinian MP Hanan Ashrawi, for example:

"This will enhance the standing of Hamas. People are sympathising with Hamas as the people who are being ruthlessly targeted by Israel. They are seen as victims of ongoing Israeli aggression"


Yes, Israel is using it as a pretext, but this does not alter the fact that the rocket attacks accomplished nothing.Why should you or anyone else living outside Gaza be allowed to dictate the forms of resistance the liberation movement adopts? The decision of Hamas to use rocket attacks is partly the outcome of necessity - there is no alternative form of attack and so the only other option is not to resist at all, which would signify an acceptance of the Israel state's embargo and mistreatment of the Palestinian people, and deprive Hamas of any means to impose pressure on Israeli and extract concessions.

[Devrim]

Hamas is reactionarySo are national liberation struggles.Not when they are linked up and turn into anti-capitalist struggles.

Please, give examples of this happening.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

Israel's Dogs of War

January, 03 2009

By Sonja Karkar

Sonja Karkar's ZSpace Page (http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/sonjakarkar)
Join ZSpace (https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup)

Israel's dogs of war have been baying for blood for some time now. They have sniffed their prey with ravenous lust as if they have been the ones starved of food instead of the Palestinians whom they have primed for slaughter. Now the pack is encircling Gaza, teeth bared and snarling, while others do their dirty work from the skies. To them, the blood of women and children smells the same as that of the menfolk who fight to defend them.

If that description offends readers, then ethnic cleansing might be more palatable a term, or genocide used to such chilling effect in the last half century, although its focus was never the Zionist plan to cleanse Palestine of its people. The crimes and guilt run the full gamut of planning, executing, collaborating, watching and pretending that one does not see. Ah, watching and pretending - they are the reasons that the perpetrators of history's horrors can carry out their deeds at all. Only when it is all over, do we whimper "we just didn't see" and then more brazenly, "never again" until it suits us to remain silent once more.

We have seen such massacres before: Deir Yassin, Lydda, Sabra and Shatila, Jenin, Beit Hanoun and many more. While Israel serves up the same shabby reason for its dastardly deeds - security - it double dips and reduces one part of Palestine to rubble, and with the world looking on and distracted, it grabs more land from another part of Palestine to consolidate its illegal settlement project in the occupied West Bank.

A world conditioned to genocide of systematic wholesale slaughter and mass graves, finds it difficult to accept genocide in slow motion. However, the immense suffering of Palestinian dispossession, displacement, transfer, exile, occupation, collective punishment and mass imprisonment, is constantly drowned out by Israel's claim to unending victimhood built on the legacy of the holocaust - a different time, a different place, different people and different narrative.

Since then, all is manufactured: God's design, the clash of civilizations, "the war on terror". We have heard over and over again the clarion call of democracy, security and liberty being sounded over the corpses of people who have been denied their basic human rights and justice. And shamefully, the two-faced, craven accomplices of the Arab world sit on the sidelines hoping that these human sacrifices will appease the real lords of the puppet states they rule. Like Pontius Pilate, they wash their hands of sixty years of associated guilt by reciting pious platitudes while concerned only with their own crumbling puny seats of power. How little is the lesson learned from history, if at all - when one is expendable, so will others be also. Their time will come, but not before rivers of blood flow into the sea of Gaza.

Hamas has become the whipping boy of the Israeli/US camp and the Arab fiefdoms alike. Before them, it was Arafat and the PLO. An independent Palestine, whether secular or Islamic, was never in their game-plan. The whole 15-year peace process has been a sham, from Oslo to Annapolis. Instead, the Palestinians have seen their land diminished further, the viability of a state eroded and their own existence threatened as never before. In turn, Israel's demands have become evermore shrill and imperious, clamouring for recognition and honours it does not deserve and receiving them from countries cowed into its service. Who would have imagined that one tiny pariah state could hold so much of the world hostage to its whims?

Israel's leaders have never hidden their expansionist goals. The imminent elections now between rivals Ehud Barak, Binyamin Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni will be over who can deliver the ultimate Greater Israel. With the attack on Gaza, Barak and Livni are each trying to position themselves to sweep to victory in the wake of a Hamas wipe-out and the delivery of a shredded society in Gaza. Netanyahu is waiting in the wings and likely to emerge the victor whatever this military assault achieves. From past experience, that will be yet another cease-fire: senseless blood spilled that changes nothing for the Palestinians or the Israelis. It does, however, raise the spectre of the transfer of some 1.5 million exhausted Palestinians.

The West Bank would be next - subjugation in labour camps under a further weakened and acquiescent Palestinian Authority or another population transfer of the remaining 2.6 million Palestinians out of their homeland forever.

Transfer is just another euphemism for ethnic cleansing and is no mere conjecture. Tzipi Livni has recently suggested the transfer to the truncated West Bank of almost 1.5 million Palestinians living as second-class citizens in Israel, despite their roots in the land and residency long before Israel was created. As for the 4 million Palestinian refugees living in camps in the surrounding Arab states and who have a legitimate claim to return to the homes taken from them by Israel, their fate would be absorption into their host countries, with no compensation, reparation or justice for the catastrophic losses they have endured for over sixty years.

Gaza right now is the defining moment for defending Palestinian human rights and our own. The dogs of war, whoever they may be, are never very far off. All we have is our common humanity to drive them away. Let us begin by outrage over what is happening to the Palestinians, for well may we rage alone if the dogs of war ever decide to turn on us.


Sonja Karkar is the founder of Women for Palestine and co-founder of Australians for Palestine in Melbourne, Australia. She has written numerous articles on Palestine, which have been published in various e-journals and newspapers and accessed on the website she edits http://www.australiansforpalestine.com (https://mail.zmag.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.australiansforpalestine.com). She can be contacted at [email protected]

From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20143

.

[Post-Something]

Please, give examples of this happening.

Devrim

I think KC meant anti-imperialist struggles, which would in turn be a vital step towards anti-capitalist struggle.

[Devrim]

I think KC meant anti-imperialist struggles, which would in turn be a vital step towards anti-capitalist struggle.

That is what I was asking for examples of. National Liberation struggle, which end up turning into anti-capitalist struggles, and not the ones that end up massacring workers.

Devrim

[Post-Something]

That is what I was asking for examples of. National Liberation struggle, which end up turning into anti-capitalist struggles, and not the ones that end up massacring workers.

Devrim

Well, China's the obvious example, albeit it's "massacring workers"; but I think you're creating a false dilema.

Is it necessarily the case that these two points are inter linked? That China struggled against imperialism, and that it ended up massacring workers?

I would say that on the one hand, the anti-imperialist struggled was progressive and certainly helped pave the way for a non-capitalist economy, but the other disasters didn't.

[Lynx]

Exactly - and so the fact that Hamas has not been voted out of office and replaced with Fatah or any other party and still has the support of more than half the total population despite the embargo shows that a Hamas-led government has not simply resulted in "suffering", contrary to what you suggested in your original post. Even the political opposition inside Gaza has recognized that the Israeli attack will probably increase support for Hamas even if rocket attacks are diminished. Consider this comment by independent Palestinian MP Hanan Ashrawi, for example:

"This will enhance the standing of Hamas. People are sympathising with Hamas as the people who are being ruthlessly targeted by Israel. They are seen as victims of ongoing Israeli aggression"
If this confirms the suspicion that both the leadership and their supporters are reactionary, then their future will be very bleak indeed. Hamas will not be voted out and their futile tactics will lead to continuing suffering and destruction. This is why I asked if the support for Hamas was based on more than just the provisioning of social services.

Why should you or anyone else living outside Gaza be allowed to dictate the forms of resistance the liberation movement adopts? The decision of Hamas to use rocket attacks is partly the outcome of necessity - there is no alternative form of attack and so the only other option is not to resist at all, which would signify an acceptance of the Israel state's embargo and mistreatment of the Palestinian people, and deprive Hamas of any means to impose pressure on Israeli and extract concessions.
The events over the past 40+ years should be sufficient to demonstrate the futility of tactics such as suicide bombings, rocket attacks and the like. Palestinians have no military options. They do have public support for their plight and that support is aimed towards finding a diplomatic solution.

[Devrim]

Well, China's the obvious example, albeit it's "massacring workers"; but I think you're creating a false dilema.

Is it necessarily the case that these two points are inter linked? That China struggled against imperialism, and that it ended up massacring workers?

I would say that on the one hand, the anti-imperialist struggled was progressive and certainly helped pave the way for a non-capitalist economy, but the other disasters didn't.

I don't think China is a good example of your point. The nationalist movement in China did end up massacring workers in 1927. Then, after the working class was broken as a political force, the bourgeois nationalist movement (by this time completely including the Communist Party) proceeded to mobilise the workers for the Second (imperialist) War.

But then I don't think that there was a non-capitalist economy in China after 1949 either.

Devrim

[Post-Something]

I don't think China is a good example of your point. The nationalist movement in China did end up massacring workers in 1927. Then, after the working class was broken as a political force, the bourgeois nationalist movement (by this time completely including the Communist Party) proceeded to mobilise the workers for the Second (imperialist) War.

But then I don't think that there was a non-capitalist economy in China after 1949 either.

Devrim

To be perfectly honest with you, I'm still reading up on China and it's experiences, so I wouldn't be able to debate you on the subject, but I will offer a couple quick points:

1. National liberation struggles offer suberb grounds to really get the workers to understand their position in the world, and more importantly, their class position.

2. This is aided by the fact that western dominance in the area will most likely be challenged frequently, and therefore lots of space to present ideas etc.

3. National liberation movements often offer a better deal for the masses in a lot of cases. For example, as brought up before, Hamas greatly imporved the education and health sectors.

4. It would be unrealistic to support some fringe revolutionary group. Of course it would be ideal if we could, but it's unlikely that they would make any difference, and therefor be unhelpful in actually fighting imperialism.

[Devrim]

1. National liberation struggles offer suberb grounds to really get the workers to understand their position in the world, and more importantly, their class position.

I don't think so. I think that they tie together the 'interests of all classes', and in reality make the class interests of the workers subordinate to that of the bourgeoisie. They act against workers building class power.


4. It would be unrealistic to support some fringe revolutionary group. Of course it would be ideal if we could, but it's unlikely that they would make any difference, and therefor be unhelpful in actually fighting imperialism.

I don't think that national liberation struggles fight against imperialism. I think that generally that fight for one imperialist faction against another.

Devrim

[KC]

That is what I was asking for examples of. National Liberation struggle, which end up turning into anti-capitalist struggles, and not the ones that end up massacring workers.

Russia.

[Post-Something]

I don't think so. I think that they tie together the 'interests of all classes', and in reality make the class interests of the workers subordinate to that of the bourgeoisie. They act against workers building class power.

How do they work against workers building class power? Could you give examples? If anything, it's been a catalyst for class consciousness as far as I can see.


I don't think that national liberation struggles fight against imperialism. I think that generally that fight for one imperialist faction against another.

What about a group like Hezbollah? They seem pretty adamantly anti-imperialism to me.

[Devrim]

Russia.I don't think that you can call the Russian revolution a national liberation struggle.

Devrim

[Devrim]

How do they work against workers building class power? Could you give examples? If anything, it's been a catalyst for class consciousness as far as I can see.

It activly argues against class politics. It talks about the unity of all classes in the national interest.


What about a group like Hezbollah? They seem pretty adamantly anti-imperialism to me.

It depends what you see imperialism as. If you think it s the policy of the US then you are right.

If you think that it is a world system, then Hezbollah are an opponent of US imperialism, but a tool of Syria and Iran.

Devrim

[KC]

I don't think that you can call the Russian revolution a national liberation struggle.

Why not? Granted, it didn't initially start with petit-bourgeois "anti-imperialism" as has manifested in colonized countries of the 20th century and supposed "victims of imperialism" in the 21st.

The aristocracy and bourgeoisie of Russia at the time of the revolution was complicit in the imperialist domination of Russia, whose majority of the economy was supported by foreign capital.

[Devrim]

Why not? Granted, it didn't initially start with petit-bourgeois "anti-imperialism" as has manifested in colonized countries of the 20th century and supposed "victims of imperialism" in the 21st.

The aristocracy and bourgeoisie of Russia at the time of the revolution was complicit in the imperialist domination of Russia, whose majority of the economy was supported by foreign capital.

I think this is a bit of an absurd argument and you know it. They weren't fighting for national liberation.

Devrim

[Post-Something]

It activly argues against class politics. It talks about the unity of all classes in the national interest.

That may be true, but the underlying workings of it all have had the opposite effect. The fact of the matter is that people have a larger connection with the material reality they live in, rather than abstract concepts such as "nation". People do realize that class is a dominant factor in their lives now, they just understand it in a different framework.

People will turn to the left far quicker if they unite against imperialism, and are shown the Marxist understanding through that struggle, but that's simply unachievable if you have hoards of tiny factions all claiming to be the true liberators. It's far more efficient to join with the people and fight alongside them, as defeating imperialism makes the scenario much easier; and offers better conditions for the people to actually raise their class consciousness.

Out of interest, what would you propose? Instead of supporting National Liberation movements? Does this actually have a real possibility of working?

[KC]

I think this is a bit of an absurd argument and you know it. They weren't fighting for national liberation.

I think we're coming from different perspectives of what we are both referring to when we say "anti-imperialist" and "national liberation" and are making some assumptions that are causing some confusion.

I think we both agree that imperialism is capitalism, and so to fight imperialism - i.e. to be anti-imperialist - one has to be anti-capitalist. We can also agree that Russia was an "imperialized" country, as the majority of its economy was propped up with foreign capital. So in this sense Russia was a "victim of imperialism" and through fighting capitalism they were invariably fighting imperialism.

Where we are disagreeing - and why you think I am being dishonest - is because we are talking primarily about imperialized countries with petit-bourgeois "anti-imperialist/national liberation" movements. In these cases the only real resistance to imperialism is a resistance to capitalism, and these parties don't offer that, so in the context of imperialism these organizations are just for this or that imperialist or form of imperialism, and not against imperialism in general.

It is important for communists in these countries to link up the anti-imperialist struggle with the anti-capitalist struggle and to agitate and propagandize around this point. The reason Palestinians have chosen Hamas, for example, is because they have a very low level of consciousness and there is no valid alternative for them that actually offers real answers. Nobody is linking imperialism up with capitalism.

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm guessing the difference here is that you are automatically assuming "national liberation" to be a petit-bourgeois concept, when I am saying that proletarian revolution is national liberation as well.

[Devrim]

Where we are disagreeing - and why you think I am being dishonest - is because we are talking primarily about imperialized countries with petit-bourgeois "anti-imperialist/national liberation" movements. In these cases the only real resistance to imperialism is a resistance to capitalism, and these parties don't offer that, so in the context of imperialism these organizations are just for this or that imperialist or form of imperialism, and not against imperialism in general.

You could argue that all working class struggle is anti-imperialist, which would tend to make the word meaningless, but the original reference was to national liberation struggles, not anti-imperialist ones, and you can't really change the terms of discussion half way through.


It is important for communists in these countries to link up the anti-imperialist struggle with the anti-capitalist struggle and to agitate and propagandize around this point. The reason Palestinians have chosen Hamas, for example, is because they have a very low level of consciousness and there is no valid alternative for them that actually offers real answers. Nobody is linking imperialism up with capitalism.

I think the point here is that the working class in Palestine is so week that there is little prospect of class struggle.



Actually, now that I think about it, I'm guessing the difference here is that you are automatically assuming "national liberation" to be a petit-bourgeois concept, when I am saying that proletarian revolution is national liberation as well.

I don't agree. Proletarian revolution is international by its nature.

Devrim

[Devrim]

That may be true, but the underlying workings of it all have had the opposite effect.

I don't agree. Please give examples.


People will turn to the left far quicker if they unite against imperialism, and are shown the Marxist understanding through that struggle,

I don't think you can develop an understanding of class struggle by advocating cross class unity.


It's far more efficient to join with the people and fight alongside them, as defeating imperialism makes the scenario much easier; and offers better conditions for the people to actually raise their class consciousness.

This is what happens. All talk of class is dropped in favour of some amorphous 'the people'.


Out of interest, what would you propose? Instead of supporting National Liberation movements? Does this actually have a real possibility of working?

Fighting for class interests, at the moment the working class in Gaza is not strong enough to assert itself. There is very little that communists can offer to workers in Gaza now. But all the nationalists can offer is the possibility of dying for their bosses.

Devrim

[Post-Something]

I don't agree. Please give examples.

There are various symbols of stratification which people readily acknowledge as belonging to the working class, or not. For example, there is Shabi culture, which is the typical tea drinking working class guy who makes jokes all day with his friends. Apparently, you're not considered a true working class guy unless you have a mustache. Also, theres been a notable upsurge in shabi music which a lot of the time deals directly with issues of class. Actually, come to think of it, there are a lot of indicators like this.

The upper class on the other hand, are pointed to as having properties in areas with lots of Israelis, for example Haradar; usually they have two cars, and a surprisingly popular thing to do in the Middle East is to employ maids. Also, these people usually have contacts enough to be able to move in and out of the Palestinian territories.

I'm not really sure how you can quantify class consciousness, but people definitelly feel the divide between the rich and the poor, and in this case, they don't attribute it to religion like they usually do.


I don't think you can develop an understanding of class struggle by advocating cross class unity.

I don't think you can accomplish very much unless you take away the veil of imperialism.


Anyway, the original point, that KC was bringing up has been answered now.

[Devrim]

There are various symbols of stratification which people readily acknowledge as belonging to the working class, ...

This argument is about culture, and sociology, not about class consciousness.


I don't think you can accomplish very much unless you take away the veil of imperialism.

I don't think that you can take away the 'veil of imperialism'.

Devrim

[Mister X]

Why should you or anyone else living outside Gaza be allowed to dictate the forms of resistance the liberation movement adopts? The decision of Hamas to use rocket attacks is partly the outcome of necessity - there is no alternative form of attack and so the only other option is not to resist at all, which would signify an acceptance of the Israel state's embargo and mistreatment of the Palestinian people, and deprive Hamas of any means to impose pressure on Israeli and extract concessions. __________________

Does an occupied nation not have the right to fight against its oppressors by every means?Certainly. But if a nation wants to free itself from foreign occupation, it also has a duty to find the best and most effective methods and reject methods that harm the struggle.

Of course we understand that under terrible provocation, an oppressed people driven beyond its endurance will sometimes resort to desperate measures. To condemn such actions as "inhuman" would be mere hypocrisy. Nevertheless, as marxists, we have a duty to explain to the masses which methods help their movement and which are harmful to it.

[Post-Something]

This argument is about culture, and sociology, not about class consciousness.

Culture is inextricably linked to, and dependant upon, the economic conditions of a society. By analysing the superstructure, we can infer correlations from the economic base. It's clear there is an antagonsim between the upper class and the lower class in Palestine, and they recognise the fact that they exist.

[Cumannach]

There's a fundamental difference between a war between imperialists and a war against imperialism.

In the former, the bourgeoisie of two rival nations, vying for markets and colonies, battle each other, in order to gain markets and colonies for themselves, and wish to use the working class as their tool to do so, as their cannon fodder against the tool of their rival, the working class of that other nation. Of course to participate in this war is obviously anti-socialist.

In the latter type of war, an imperialist state is in military control of a foreign country, it's people and resources, to a greater or lesser degree. It is fighting the inhabitants of that country, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie, because they fancy that role for themselves, and believe it their right, since it is their country, to be the oppressors and exploiters of it, and no one else. The proletariat, because this class believes it alone should control the state, and therefore will oppose any minority class, native or foreign, which denies them.

Here the bourgeois nationalists have a common aim with the socialists and the class they represent. The socialists, recognising that it is easier to do away with their weaker home grown capitalists, and in any case already in struggle against the imperialists, will join their bourgeois nationalists in overthrowing the imperialist state power, before turning on these same would-be parasites.


The Palestinians are not sacrificing their lives in a competition between capitalists, they are struggling against brutal foreign imperialist control of their country.

Where does the idea come from that it is a forbidden sin to use nationalists as a tool to overthrow imperialism and capitalism altogether?

If no-one agrees on the historical precedents, what theoretical proof is there, that this strategy must somehow fail?