PSC/SWP "attack" anti-Israeli state/anti-Hamas protestors [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

18th January 2009, 16:35

Are you seriously suggesting that, because the SWP supported a decision undertaken by the PSC to remove an insulting placard, the SWP aims to establish itself as the sole political party in a post-revolutionary society, and would ruthlessly clamp down on any form of political dissent to stop people from questioning our ideas?

Yes, actually, I am seriously suggesting that. You people are bunch of fucking pseudo-fascists and one of these days you're going to go too far and end up realising you have a real fucking problem on your hands.

A demonstration is not, contrary to what you seem to believe, a minature society. The AWL is widely know as an islamophobic group which uses left-wing rhetoric to obscure their underlying support for Zionism and imperialist expansionism, and clearly a placard which makes it seem as if the IDF and Hamas are equally responsible for the conflict and are equally worthy of condemnation has no place on a demonstration against the Israeli state, involving large numbers of people who have lost family members as a result of the Israel invasion and ongoing economic embargo, in addition to people who may see themselves as supporters of Hamas, in the same way that white nationalists expressing their hatred of Jewish people would not be welcome.Oh shut the fuck up with your bullshit bleeding heart liberalism! First of all how in the name of reason could anyone have known about that man's family and even if they had, to suggest that people are not allowed to make political points just in case he happens to find them upsetting is utter nonsense. Essentially what you're arguing is that anyone who dares utter a contrary opinion to the SWP's or PSC's should not be allowed to express it. And if you're going to use this bullshit logic that opposing Hamas equates to Islamophobia then I will say that supporting Hamas equates to anti-Semitism, because let's all remember the placard in London that read 'Jews: Back to the chambers'. Where were PSC and the SWP then?

Furthermore, finding opposition to a reactionary, theocratic, anti-working class organisation that systemmatically represses women and gay men and who consistently shuts down workers struggle and democracy "insulting" really goes to show the class allegiances of the SWP.

Keep in mind that this is the same organization which chose to wave an Israeli flag - a flag representing a racist imperialist state - on a picket line at the Israel embassy: http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2009/01/09/workers-liberty-activist-thrown-israeli-embassy-demo-islamists-and-police
I'm not defending the AWL's politics, I oppose them nearly as much as the SWP, but the fact remains that opposition to a reactionary, anti-working class organisation like Hamas is perfectly legitimate. Firstly, doing so is not equating the Israeli state in any way with Hamas, it's showing opposition to them on an equal basis, secondly it does not indicate support for Israel, that is clearly just bullshit opportunism and thirdly calling for solidarity with the international working class against reactionary organisations that attack workers and shut down their struggles is fundamentally the right attitude to take.

And let's be realistic here. Supporting Hamas is ridiculous on many levels, not least of all because of their reactionary nature, but because they're never going to win, so taking a principled stand along side a reactionary organsation that's doomed to failure is clearly just absurd. Not to mention the fact that if they did win people like the SWP would be the first against the wall. But then again what does the SWP care?: This is just yet another opportunity to sell papers and sign up members. And also, let's remember that Maxine Bowler is a standing candidate for RESPECT in the biggest Arab community in Sheffield. Very principled.

You're a fucking joke and so is your sell-out anti-working class, Islamicist organisation. All in all, you and the SWP can fuck off.

Keep it up, Sheffield comrades!If I had been there and if I am there and it happens again any SWP that comes near me will find that I am beyond unreasonable. Bunch of fucking ****s!

Sam_b

18th January 2009, 16:37

I would argue that the real 'bunch of fucking ****s' are the AFers in that Indymedia thread who get absolutely destroyed, and their mates in their support for the chauvenism of the Israeli state.

The Feral Underclass

18th January 2009, 16:41

I wonder what the Left Communists did during ww2, maybe they made placards both against the German Nazi Party and Against the Jews, Communists, Trade Unionists and resistance movements for fighting back.

That not only makes absolutely no sense, you're implying that Left communists would support anti-Semitism. Or are you trying to equate Hamas with the persecution of the Jews in Nazi occupied Europe?

Don't be a fucking idiot all your life.

The Feral Underclass

18th January 2009, 16:46

I would argue that the real 'bunch of fucking ****s' are the AFers in that Indymedia thread who get absolutely destroyed, and their mates in their support for the chauvenism of the Israeli state.

I see. So actually what you're going to do is totally ignore the politics then? You're not actually going address the fact that the SWP censor and police demonstrations and attack protesters who show their opposition to reactionary, theocratic and anti-working class organisations that smash workers struggles and repress women and gay men? No? You're not actually going to try and justify your reprehensible ideas? No surprise there then.

And lumping the AF into the same bag as people like the AWL simply highlights your totally ignorance and lack of knowledge about what you're talking about.

Sam_b

18th January 2009, 16:53

jaffe

18th January 2009, 17:03

the Palestinian people organising to resist under the banner of Hamas.Is it working?

The rhetoric smacks of Israeli justification,where exactly does the AF justificate the attacks of Israel?

and instead of siding with the oppressed and their choice of resistance they merely condemn the thousands upon thousands of Palestinian people and their vehicle of reistance.They side with the working class not with reactionary anti-working class organisations who provide no chance of a better future for them.

The Feral Underclass

18th January 2009, 17:05

Both AF and AWL have a holier-than-thou attitude to the rest of the left, and it shows. They also appear to share disgust at the Palestinian people organising to resist under the banner of Hamas. The rhetoric smacks of Israeli justification, and instead of siding with the oppressed and their choice of resistance they merely condemn the thousands upon thousands of Palestinian people and their vehicle of reistance. Its first world chauvenism of the worst kind, and fortunately it doesn't hold much influence in the wider pro-Gaza community.

So you're not going to justify it then? You're just going to attack ad hominem and construct strawman arguments?

So now the SWP consider opposing reactionary, anti-working class organisations that shut down workers struggle to be "holier-than-thou"? Once again you're showing the true nature of the SWP's class allegiances. It's certainly not on the side of the Palestinian working class.

Trying to detract the reactionary nature of your ideas by pointing out we live in the UK is just stupid. By extension, so are you? What kind of an argument is that.

18th January 2009, 17:19

Both AF and AWL have a holier-than-thou attitude to the rest of the left, and it shows. They also appear to share disgust at the Palestinian people organising to resist under the banner of Hamas. The rhetoric smacks of Israeli justification, and instead of siding with the oppressed and their choice of resistance they merely condemn the thousands upon thousands of Palestinian people and their vehicle of reistance. Its first world chauvenism of the worst kind, and fortunately it doesn't hold much influence in the wider pro-Gaza community.

This kind of thinking is what you get when you have a communalist approach instead of a class analysis: Hamas and the Palestinian people become one and the same, every critical approach to this automatically becomes "Israeli justification" and "holier-than-thou" and of couse siding with the working class is first world chauvinism, of the worst kind no less.

Be aware kids, this is one of the reasons why the SWP will never outgrow the stage of being a radical activist group and can't actually build a movement along class lines.

Sam_b

18th January 2009, 18:21

Be aware kids, this is one of the reasons why the SWP will never outgrow the stage of being a radical activist group and can't actually build a movement along class lines

OOH! OOH! Does Taafe mention that in his book?

Kassad

18th January 2009, 18:26

Seeing that... most socialist organizations are having a tough time breaking past the 'activist group' label, I'd say that statement is irrelevant. There aren't many groups that are appealing to those struggling in the class system right now.

Pogue

18th January 2009, 18:41

Red October

18th January 2009, 18:54

An organization having mass support doesn't make it right and it never has. The working classes in America clearly chose to support Obama and the Democratic Party, it doesn't make that a good thing. All sorts of reactionary, anti-worker groups have mass support...does that change the fact that they are oppressive and reactionary? Hamas is an anti-semitic, anti-worker islamist organization, why the hell are we supposed to support it?

Magdalen

18th January 2009, 19:10

jaffe

18th January 2009, 19:42

The AWL are an openly Shachtmanite social-imperialist organisation á la Christopher Hitchens
I think the fact that he is a member of AWL has nothing to do with the actions of SWP or PSC. If it was some one else the same thing probably would happen.

Neither the Israeli flag used in London nor the placard used in Sheffield had any place
whatsoever on a rally against the Israeli genocide in Gaza.Internationalist positions are different from nationalist ones.

Indeed, their placard describes Israel and Hamas as equal evils! To quote Aristotle, 'There is no greater sin than to try to make unequal things equal.'? They're military not equal but they seem to share most political standpoints only their flags are different.

The Feral Underclass

18th January 2009, 19:43

I'm no defender of the SWP or the PSC, but the allegations being made against them here are way off the mark. The AWL are an openly Shachtmanite social-imperialist organisation á la Christopher Hitchens, and in the past have praised Boris Yeltsin, supported an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran, refused to call for the withdrawal of imperialist troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and branded critics of Israel or the two-state solution 'Anti-Semitic'. Neither the Israeli flag used in London nor the placard used in Sheffield had any place whatsoever on a rally against the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

None of that has actually addressed the issues raised. Especially the fact that the SWP support a reactionary, anti-working class organisation

They, and their supporters in the AF, are the real opportunists! Indeed, their placard describes Israel and Hamas as equal evils! To quote Aristotle, 'There is no greater sin than to try to make unequal things equal.'Beyond the fact your trying to qualify your opinion by quoting some quasi-religious sentiment, this argument actually makes no sense. Can you please explain how having a banner that says "No to IDF and No to Hamas" is equating the two as the same. It's a massive leap in logic to make that argument.

The banner articulates opposition to the IDF and to Hamas equally, it does not make statements nor does it actually attempt to infer that they are the same and if you'd actually genuinely engaged with the politics you'd know full well that this is not what is being argued.

Further to that, this point that your making seems to allude to an argument suggesting that because the IDF and Hamas are different we shouldn't oppose them? That doesn't even make sense. This opinion that we should support Hamas because they're fighting the Israeli state is totally bankrupt and based on no class analysis whatsoever.

Then again, perhaps that doesn't bother you. In fact, I'd probably wager that a lack of class analysis does not bother you. People like you and the SWP couldn't care at all about the Palestinian working class and the fact that Hamas consistently attacks their struggles and shuts down their democracy calling for workers rights and power. You don't actually give a shit about calling for unity among the working class and breaking down nationalist barriers. And do you know what's so funny about this whole thing: If you were in Palestine, you and the SWP would be the first against the wall once Hamas were firmly in power.

Oh, and isn't it a touch hypocritical for The Anarchist Tension to brand the SWP as 'fucking ****s' while trying to accuse Hamas of anti-feminism?Me using the word **** and supporting a reactionary organisation that systematically represses women are not the same thing and your attempt to compare them is not only disrespectful for feminists and the struggle against sexism it's fundamentally inaccurate.

Pogue

18th January 2009, 19:46

communard resolution

18th January 2009, 20:40

Indeed, their placard describes Israel and Hamas as equal evils! To quote Aristotle, 'There is no greater sin than to try to make unequal things equal.'

Perhaps Israel is currently the bigger evil because it happens to be infinitely more powerful than the Hamas? Sometimes the inequality is in the balance of power, but not in the intentions.

This is an interesting thread, but I would like to know from the folks who defend Hamas as "the organisation that the Palestinian working class chose to support" how they themselves would actually characterise the Hamas.

Therefore, could I ask you a favour? Please describe Hamas as you see them. What is their ideology? How has their work benefitted the working class, and how do you think it will benefit the working class in the future? Do you think they're likely to support international socialism, or do you think they're likely to work against it? Why do you think is it in the interest of Palestinian, Jewish, and other socialists to ally themselves with Hamas?

I'm not one to throw slurs based on someone's organisation, but in this specific case I'm getting the impression that SWP members think in terms of tribes rather than classes - which isn't something we want to be doing, is it? To prove my impression wrong, you may want to answer the above questions.

Devrim

18th January 2009, 21:14

I think that the real question is not about whether or not there is any equivalence between Israel and HAMAS. The more important question is whether the way to deal with workers who have different opinions to you is to attack them.

Would you really trust these people when they are talking about workers' democracy if they attack other workers who have political differences with them.

I find the pro-Israeli politics of the AWL totally reprehensible. I also find the SWP's politics appalling. Central committee member, Weyman Bennett's comments that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever” were absolutely repugnant. It is a step away from calling for ethnic cleansing.

However, I don't advocate attacking either of those groups. Nor do I advocate stopping them from spreading their pro-war propaganda.

One has to ask oneself what sort of workers' democracy the SWP envisage.

Devrim

Hit The North

18th January 2009, 22:46

This is an interesting thread, but I would like to know from the folks who defend Hamas as "the organisation that the Palestinian working class chose to support" how they themselves would actually characterise the Hamas.

We recognise that Hamas is a radical Islamist organisation. We have no illusions that radical Islam is socially progressive or presents a solution for workers in the Middle East. But we also recognise that Hamas is the only vehicle for Palestinian resistance to Israel that is currently available and that, at least at the ballot box, Palestinian workers have elected them as their legitimate representatives over the only other serious rival, Fatah, which is hopelessly corrupt and refuses to resist Israel. We recognise that at this moment the Palestinian working class is not strong enough to present an independent force in this struggle.

We support Palestinian resistance to Israel because we view Israel as an agent of Imperialism, securing definite and concrete gains for, particularly, Western capitalist interests. These interests impede not just the Palestinian working class but the entire working class in the region. The SWP argues that the interests of the regional working class can only be met through the revolutionary action of the working class united across the region and organised independently.

The SWP response to the Israeli attack on Gaza was this:

http://www.swp.org.uk/resources/gazaleaf.pdf

It's a leaflet in our usual style - unencumbered by lofty-sounding Marxist theorizing - which immediately names our own ruling class as complicit in the slaughter and calls upon people to show solidarity for the Palestinian people by demonstrating against one of the political and military backers of Israeli power, the British government. It seems to me that this is our job in Britain.

But there are too many writers here who seem to think the job of Western communists is to formulate the most perfect analysis of the situation. Why, because it helps the Palestinians who will never read it? Or is it in the hope that other people on the 'Left' can be won to their organizations on the basis of the "correct analysis"? Or is it just the vanity of schoolmasters, anxious to teach us all a lesson?

The more important question is whether the way to deal with workers who have different opinions to you is to attack them.
Devrim

I don't see any evidence that anyone was attacked. They were confronted and their banner was taken from them, after they were asked to stand separately from the majority of the demonstrators who did not agree with the slogan. Let's not be too "liberal" in our attitude to this kind of "muscular democracy" which has been a hallmark of working class politics. Otherwise we'll end up like TAT, sounding like the Daily Mail.

Marion

18th January 2009, 23:14

BobKKKindle$

18th January 2009, 23:21

Therefore, could I ask you a favour? Please describe Hamas as you see them. What is their ideology? How has their work benefitted the working class, and how do you think it will benefit the working class in the future?As BtB pointed out, the SWP has no illusions about the political goals and ideological character of Hamas, as we acknowledge that Hamas is an organization which reflects the class interests of the aspirant bourgeoisie and is incapable of offering a radical solution to the problems faced by workers living in Palestine as well as other countries throughout the region. However, despite these issues, the fact remains that Hamas is the leading section of the resistance and is one of the few movements not to have rejected the possibility and desirability of a unitary state encompassing the whole of historic Palestine including land currently under the control of the Israeli state - Fatah, by contrast, is now committed to a two-state solution, and so has effectively rejected the right of Palestinian refugees expelled during the Naqba to return to their homes and reclaim land which has been stolen from them by Israeli settlers, backed by the armed might of the Israeli state. This, and other factors such as Fatah's reputation for the misuse of PA funds, as well as Hamas' role in providing essential services such as education and the reconstruction of the houses which have been damaged as a result of the Israeli onslaught and regular incursions, has allowed Hamas to establish itself as a reliable and popular movement amongst Palestinian workers.

In an ideal world, Hamas would not exist, and the resistance would be led by a socialist organization which displays all the progressive features of Hamas but also combines the struggle against Zionism with a broader set of struggles against other forms of social and political oppression, including the struggle against capitalism, and the struggle against patriarchy. We do not live in an ideal world. However, it would be reactionary and chauvinist to disregard the right of Palestinian workers to resist imperialism and defend themselves in the face of Israel barbarism just because they have chosen to express their resistance through a reactionary movement, and this is why socialists support the military struggle of Hamas, whilst also calling for the construction of a new socialist organization capable of overthrowing capitalism in solidarity with the workers of all other countries, including the Jewish working class. The only way such an organization would ever be able to remove Hamas and change the political direction of the resistance movement is if the organization in question offered an effective vehicle of resistance to Palestinians who are currently living under Israeli military oppression and have no choice but to fight back against the Zionists.

Weyman Bennett's comments that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever” were absolutely repugnantSource? Oh, of course, Weekly Worker and Devirm's anonymous mates.

And how is encouraging them to fight and die for Hamas going to help them eventually create an independent force?The SWP has never called on workers to die for Hamas. Workers resist imperialism of their own accord, because it's in their own class interests to do so, not because a bunch of socialists living in the UK enjoy reading about the deaths of Palestinian workers. Recent events have shown that even those workers who are not a direct part of the resistance struggle are liable to be harmed and even killed, because the IDF is perfectly capable of bombing schools and apartment blocs under the guise of destroying "terrorist infrastructure"" We recognize that, at the current time, Hamas is the leading section of the resistance, and it is unlikely that a new movement will suddenly be created in the middle of a war - and so in this context we do not fall into the trap of totally rejecting Hamas, but offer critical military support.

The Feral Underclass

18th January 2009, 23:22

But we also recognise that Hamas is the only vehicle for Palestinian resistance to Israel that is currently available and that, at least at the ballot box, Palestinian workers have elected them as their legitimate representatives over the only other serious rival, Fatah, which is hopelessly corrupt and refuses to resist Israel. We recognise that at this moment the Palestinian working class is not strong enough to present an independent force in this struggle.

First of all we have to stop this nonsense argument that they are an elected government. It's absolutely irrelevant whether they are elected or not, it does not provide the basis for supporting them. Secondly, the logic that concludes the opinion that supporting a reactionary, theocratic and anti-working class organisation is the only choice, which is essentially your argument, over the working class because the working class is "weak" is completely bizarre.

To start with what does "weak" mean? What a totally ambiguous and mystical assertion. I can only assume you mean that it's not in a position to challenge the state/capitalism. In any case, even if that statement did have some substance to it, it would be a totally redundant if not utterly false distinction to make. The working class all over the world is "weak" by that definition, yet we support them because our class is the most important aspect to us: It is the basis of struggle.

You could argue that the material conditions for social change simply don't exist at a time when an imperialist force is attempting to expand, but then again the contrary argument could be presented: That in fact the material conditions which the Palestinian working class face are just right for them to start making demands: Demands that challenge Hamas and call for unity among the working class, both Palestinian and Israeli. Throughout Palestine there have already been examples of working class struggle and it is this that we should be supporting. It is the working class who should be resisting imperialism.

Let's be clear. The Palestinian working class don't want war. They don't want to fight. They want to be able to work and feed themselves and their families. When Hamas talk about destroying Israel and Israel talk about destroying Hamas, who is it that's in the middle of it? Who are the countless victims of violence stoked by religious fundamentalism and national on both sides? It's the Palestinian working class who have had enough...

But there are too many writers here who seem to think the job of Western communists is to formulate the most perfect analysis of the situation. Why, because it helps the Palestinians who will never read it? Or is it in the hope that other people on the 'Left' can be won to their organizations on the basis of the "correct analysis"? Or is it just the vanity of schoolmasters, anxious to teach us all a lesson?...Now this is a point. No one, no matter who they are and what they say will have any direct consequence on what is happening in Palestine. That means statements from the AF or ICC or the AWL or even the SWP and PSC. Nothing any of us say is going to help the Palestinian's resist and overcome Israeli aggression. Yet we all say it anyway.

And there are choices to be made. Within the symbolic nature of our "analysis" and solidarity protests we have choices that we must make and we must make them based on the realities of the political and material conditions in Palestine. Putting out an opinion and contributing to the debate is pretty much all we can do and we should do that. We are united as an international class and what happens to the Palestinian working class should be an assult on every worker around the world.

So what is your choice? And this isn't about trying to see who has the best analysis nor is it about point-scoring. You and your party have chosen to support the enemy of the Palestinian workers when this is a time for the international workers movement to be supporting our brothers and sisters in Palestine against anything that seeks to subjugate it. In your symbolic gestures you and your party have betrayed the working class of Palestine by siding with a reactionary force that has engaged in the systematic destruction of workers struggles in Gaza and who daily repress women and gay people.

And what of this debate? What of forwarding our understanding of the struggles we face as workers and as a part of this international working class? As clearly demonstrated by your party it is a debate with only one side and any other will simply not be tolerated.

I don't see any evidence that anyone was attacked. They were confronted and their banner was taken from them, after they were asked to stand separately from the majority of the demonstrators who did not agree with the slogan. Let's not be too "liberal" in our attitude to this kind of "muscular democracy" which has been a hallmark of working class politicsThe SWP and PSC shut down dissent against Hamas. That's what happened. Pure and simple. There is absolutely no other way to understand it.

Otherwise we'll end up like TAT, sounding like the Daily Mail.All I have done is call for solidarity with the Palestinian working class against the Israeli state that seeks to destroy them and the theocratic, reactionary organisation that seeks to subjugate them.

If that makes me sound like the Daily Mail then that's fine with me.

Marion

18th January 2009, 23:32

We do not live in an ideal world. However, it would be reactionary and chauvinist to disregard the right of Palestinian workers to resist imperialism and defend themselves in the face of Israel barbarism just because they have chosen to express their resistance through a reactionary movement, and this is why socialists support the military struggle of Hamas
So, from this argument, any movement that gets a certain amount of support in an attempt to "resist imperialism" automatically gets the support of the SWP? Are there no lines you would draw whatsoever?

PS What is the difference between saying Hamas are a "reactionary movement" and having "No to Hamas" on a placard? Not all that much...

BobKKKindle$

18th January 2009, 23:43

It's absolutely irrelevant whether they are elected or not, it does not provide the basis for supporting themThis is a relevant issue, because anarchists like yourself have fallen into the habit of portraying Hamas as an organization totally separate from the Palestinian working class without any degree of popular backing whatsoever whereas in reality Hamas does command popular support, not only in Palestine but also in other countries such as Egypt and the Shia community of Lebanon, primarily because Hamas has shown itself to be the most effective and committed vehicle of resistance, in contrast to the rest of the Palestinian movement. This does not mean that Hamas should be supported uncritically, as socialists should continue to call for independent organizations and assist the construction of organizations in any way that we can, but it does mean that the analysis you insist on promoting - that Hamas is totally illegitimate as a political movement and should not be considered worthy of any form of support whatsoever - is false.

No one, no matter who they are and what they say will have any direct consequence on what is happening in PalestineOur analysis will not have an impact in Palestine - but it has had an impact in this country, as we (i.e. the SWP) have drawn attention to the crimes committed by the IDF during the course of the war, as well as Israel's responsibility for starting the conflict, and consequently this country witnessed the biggest and most militant mobilization in support of Palestine ever. Not only this, there has also been an important impact within the student movement - the intervention of our militants in three universities (LSE, SOAS, and Essex) had led to occupations, with students winning the right to use university facilities for their own political meetings at no cost, as well as scholarships for Palestinian students. SWP activists played a crucial role in allowing these occupations to take place - where were the anarchists and Left-Communists?

So, from this argument, any movement that gets a certain amount of support in an attempt to "resist imperialism" automatically gets the support of the SWP? Are there no lines you would draw whatsoever?In cases of national oppression, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, the SWP takes the side of the oppressed, and supports organizations such as Hamas in their capacity as components of an anti-imperialist resistance, not because we support Hamas or any other non-socialist organization on an ideological level. Anarchists are unable to draw a distinction between different forms of support.

PS What is the difference between saying Hamas are a "reactionary movement" and having "No to Hamas" on a placard? Not all that much... There is a difference between criticizing Hamas' record on homosexual rights and the struggle against patriarchy, and condemning Hamas outright by placing Hamas on the same level as the Israel state without recognizing Israel's role as an imperialist state in the Middle East, and the legitimate resistance of the Palestinian working-class. Again, everyone on the left in the UK knows that the AWL is a Zionist organization, and the right of association does not mean we have a duty to tolerate such reactionary forces.

redarmyfaction38

18th January 2009, 23:48

Holding such a placard is a genuine position. I'm anti-Hamas and anti-Israel. I don't think Hamas are quite as bad as Israel but ideologically and in what they do they're fucked up. I understand its distasteful to make the two seem equal, but its a fair point to be opposed to both and reflects the line of pretty much every left communist, anarchist, and I'm sure a number of Trots or Leninists who also don't like Hamas. Anyway its a legitimate point to make and not against the protest, and people have to deal with the fact that if an organisation smashes strikes, attacks workers, etc, it's going to be opposed by alot of people, especially socialists. And socialists obviously have a very obvious and important part in these protests. We need to convince people Hamas are not the solution to the Palestinian people's problems.
that's about what i'm thinking, the idf is a reactionary tool, hamas is, despite its social programme etc, another reactionary party.
nowhere is the concept of workers control or even workers involvement in the revolutionary movement even considered.
as for the swp, i don't want to start another argument that gets me accused of "sectarianism",
as for the awl?
anarchists are generally good comrades but sometimes i miss the point of their support for "nationalists" and "fascists" when our whole class is under attack.
that might be a misinterpretation of their stance, i've seen the anarcho communists in antifa fighting the fascists and the fascist capitalist state and have no problem with antifa.

The Feral Underclass

18th January 2009, 23:52

This is a relevant issue, because anarchists like yourself have fallen into the habit of portraying Hamas as an organization totally separate from the Palestinian working class without any degree of popular backing whatsoever whereas in reality Hamas does command popular support, not only in Palestine but also in other countries such as Egypt and the Shia community of Lebanon, primarily because Hamas has shown itself to be the most effective and committed vechichel of resistance, in contrast to the rest of the Palestinian movement.

The Labour Party have popular support. And Hamas are separate from the working class, no matter what you or the SWP say. They may have popular support, but that does not make them apart of the working class.

This does not mean that Hamas should be supported uncritically

They shouldn't be supported at all.

but it has had an impact in this country, as we (i.e. the SWP) have drawn attention to the crimes committed by the IDF during the course of the war, as well as Israel's responsibility for starting the conflict, and consequently this country witnessed the biggest and most militant mobilization in support of Palestine ever.

It had nothing to do with the SWP so don't even try and claim it. The militancy of the demonstrations were by Islamicists not the SWP and to try and claim they had any significant role to play in that militancy is simply a blatant lie.

the intervention of our militants in three universiites (LSE, SOAS, and Essex) had led to occupations, with students winning the right to use university facilities for their own political meetings at no cost, as well as scholarships for Palestinian students.

Oh right. So students got to use their own universities for free. Victory for the Intifada indeed! :rolleyes:

SWP activists played a crucial role in allowing these occupations to take place - where were the anarchists and Left-Communists?

Anarchists were involved in all of these things, from the demonstrations to the militancy to the occupations and interventions at these universities. Trying to portray the SWP as some kind of leadership over this movement is ridiculous.

The Feral Underclass

18th January 2009, 23:55

Anarchists are unable to draw a distinction between different forms of support.

Don't kid yourself. The SWP's analysis is not particularly sophisticated. The "different distinctions" are perfectly easy to understand. They're just wrong.

There is a difference between criticizing Hamas' record on homosexual rights and the struggle against patriarchy, and condemning Hamas outright by placing Hamas on the same level as the Israel state

That's a strawman argument, either because you're stupid and unaware of your logical fallaces, you have no idea what the politics of this opposition is or your being opportunistic. Trying to make the claim that a banner which says "No to the IDF, No to Hamas" is the same as "putting them on the same level" is completely disingeneous and obviously wrong.

Marion

18th January 2009, 23:58

In cases of national oppression, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, the SWP takes the side of the oppressed, and supports organizations such as Hamas in their capacity as components of an anti-imperialist resistance, not because we support Hamas or any other non-socialist organization on an ideological level. Anarchists are unable to draw a distinction between different forms of support.
So, in answer to my original question, you're saying that there is no anti-imperialist movement you would not support on a military level? Anyway, you're defining your military support on an ideological level (it being anti-imperialist) so there doesn't seem to be a dividing line between your two forms of support.

There is a difference between criticizing Hamas' record on homosexual rights and the struggle against patriarchy, and condemning Hamas outright by placing Hamas on the same level as the Israel state without recognizing Israel's role as an imperialist state in the Middle East, and the legitimate resistance of the Palestinian working-class. Again, everyone on the left in the UK knows that the AWL is a Zionist organization, and the right of association does not mean we have a duty to tolerate such reactionary forces. The difficulty is that you do think that Hamas is bourgeois and you do think they are reactionary, but these are things you only admit to when questioned on Internet boards.

Sam_b

19th January 2009, 00:02

The militancy of the demonstrations were by Islamicists not the SWP and to try and claim they had any significant role to play in that militancy is simply a blatant lie.

Who helped organise the demos in the first place - the SWP, or you and your AFed buddies that just turn up?

Marion

19th January 2009, 00:02

Anarchists were involved in all of these things, from the demonstrations to the militancy to the occupations and interventions at these universities. Trying to portray the SWP as some kind of leadership over this movement is ridiculous.

Agree with virtually all of your posts, but I am quite happy to leave leadership of popular front movements (as the Gaza protests are) up to the SWP if they want it (which they do).

Sam_b

19th January 2009, 00:03

The difficulty is that you do think that Hamas is bourgeois and you do think they are reactionary, but these are things you only admit to when questioned on Internet boards.

And puh-leeze, the dogs in the street know that Hamas is bourgeois.

Hit The North

19th January 2009, 00:12

I'm not sure how often this has been pointed out, but why on earth does the number of votes they have got matter in the slightest?

It tells us a number of important things, not least the political consciousness of tens of thousands of Palestinian workers. Moreover, the election of Hamas was the trigger for the Israeli blockade of Gaza and has led to the current slaughter. I know you like to think that all this voting shit is irrelevant - and to your 'theory' may be it is. In the real world, however, it might just signify something.

And how is encouraging them to fight and die for Hamas going to help them eventually create an independent force?It doesn't. So we don't. We let the anarchists and left communists tell the Palestinian workers what to do.

And you think that an independent Palestine will not act as an agent of Imperialism. Do you really imagine that they wouldn't be signing contracts with whichever Western businesses they could?You seem to be failing to understand the unique position Israel occupies in the imperialist designs of Western powers.

Butthe SWP doesn't recognise a two state solution, so the question is moot. But do you think the Palestinian working class will be worse off in an independent Palestine than they are under Israeli bombardment and economic blockade?

No mention of anything remotely connected with working class politics apart from one mention of the "Arab working class" So this one instance of mentioning the Arab working class (in a very short leaflet) constitutes "No mention of anything remotely connected with working class politics"? Please try to make sense.

which actually makes things worse as it merely highlights that the SWP simply sees their relevance as part (albeit an important part) of an united "Arab people". We believe that an independently organised working class must attain leadership of the "people". As with any other capitalist nations, the working class of the Middle Eastern countries constitute the vast mass of "the people" anyway.

Of course, whereas the many internationalist statements from the UK are, presumably, not read in Palestine at all, the statements from the SWP are read in their thousands by mass crowds in Gaza just waiting for the latest statement from the Socialist Worker.Well, hey, thanks for the optimistic assessment but you seem to be missing the point: we don't vainly assume we're addressing the Palestinian working class with Socialist Worker. We're addressing the working class in Britain.

The Feral Underclass

19th January 2009, 00:34

Well, hey, thanks for the optimistic assessment but you seem to be missing the point: we don't vainly assume we're addressing the Palestinian working class with Socialist Worker. We're addressing the working class in Britain.

And your message is: Support Hamas.

Zurdito

19th January 2009, 00:35

On protests tempers run high and people often become aggressive with each other, attacking placards etc., regardless of tendency.

I do not agree with the placard, or with destroying it: I think it displays a petty mentality which sadly many people involved in politics have - notice how in any election campaign, most sides take down each others posters, etc.

Still though I do not think that one small incident on a protest is such a big deal. I have seen far worse. The owner of the placard also should have stood up for themselves better. If their reaction in the face of such an unthreatening situation as a PCS steward becoming angry is to just let them destroy your placard, then I would hate to see what kind of resistance those people aim to offer to Israel or Hamas.

Hit The North

19th January 2009, 00:48

Originally posted by TAT
Let's be clear. The Palestinian working class don't want war. They don't want to fight. Isn't that what the vote for Hamas over Fatah actually meant? It was a vote to continue the struggle against Israel and not settle for sloppy seconds. So if David Cameron is right and "general elections are the only opinion polls which count" (;)) and in the absence of any alternative means at your disposal to ascertain the majority opinion of the Palestinian workers, it seems that we could argue they do want, if not quite war, continued resistance against the Israeli state.

And there are choices to be made. Within the symbolic nature of our "analysis" and solidarity protests we have choices that we must make and we must make them based on the realities of the political and material conditions in Palestine. Putting out an opinion and contributing to the debate is pretty much all we can do and we should do that. We are united as an international class and what happens to the Palestinian working class should be an assult on every worker around the world.

Well apart from the fact that I think our ambition should be more than just "putting an opinion and contributing to debate" (we're not a branch of the media!), and the fact that we are not united as an international class in the real world, that speech brought a lump to my trousers.

In your symbolic gestures you and your party have betrayed the working class of Palestine by siding with a reactionary force that has engaged in the systematic destruction of workers struggles in Gaza and who daily repress women and gay people. The glib reply would be that they started it by voting Hamas in their tens of thousands. But stop pretending that the SWP support Hamas in any sense except in its struggle against Israeli oppression and murder.

The SWP and PSC shut down dissent against Hamas. That's what happened. Pure and simple. There is absolutely no other way to understand it.
Please don't pretend to be a simpleton. There are many other ways of understanding it: (a) Emotionally: people, mindful of the mass slaughter of Palestinian workers, were offended by the suggestion of moral equivalence between Hamas and IDF implied by the slogan. (b) Politically: You can't campaign against the slaughter by not taking sides unequivocally against the imperialist aggressor without lapsing into liberal humanitarianism (which I have a lot of sympathy for, but still).

All I have done is call for solidarity with the Palestinian working class against the Israeli state that seeks to destroy them and the theocratic, reactionary organisation that seeks to subjugate them. Yes, but i wasn't referring to that I'm referring to your rant on page 1, including this:
If I had been there and if I am there and it happens again any SWP that comes near me will find that I am beyond unreasonable. Bunch of fucking ****s!Oh dear.

If that makes me sound like the Daily Mail then that's fine with me. Ah, bless.

Hit The North

19th January 2009, 00:53

nowhere is the concept of workers control or even workers involvement in the revolutionary movement even considered.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16835

Zurdito

19th January 2009, 00:56

Let's be clear. The Palestinian working class don't want war. They don't want to fight. They want to be able to work and feed themselves and their families. When Hamas talk about destroying Israel and Israel talk about destroying Hamas, who is it that's in the middle of it? Who are the countless victims of violence stoked by religious fundamentalism and national on both sides? It's the Palestinian working class who have had enough...

So you buy the line that if Hamas did not fire rockets at Israel, then there would be no massacre of the PAlestinians?

Seriously?

I suppose the Zionists occupied Palestine in 1948 then as a return for Hamas attacks?

The fact is that Israel broke the current ceasefire back in Novemeber because it wants to crush any Palestinian spirit definitively.

It also did these for poltiical reasons, tow in support from the masses in the run to the coming general election.

The logic of zionism leads to the need to wipe out definitively the Palestinians, it is an expansionist and colonialist ideology, similair to manifest destiny. Whatever the Palestinains do, Israel will attack them.

Apart from this the idea that the Palestinians should not resist 60 years of occupation because "the working class pays the price" is pretty disgusting, it is demagogy pure and simple. The idea that after 3 years of seige which have left 75% of Palestinians malnourished and the majority of their kids suffering from either deafness and/or PTSD as a result of bombing raids, that if the Palestinians had offered no resistance at all, then Israel would not do what it does likewise. You are equating an occupying power with the occupied nation and making some appeal against the evil of "war" as if fell from the sky.

Hit The North

19th January 2009, 00:59

And your message is: Support Hamas.

Our message is "Break Britain's links with Israel".

BobKKKindle$

19th January 2009, 01:02

The Labour Party have popular support. And Hamas are separate from the working class, no matter what you or the SWP say. They may have popular support, but that does not make them apart of the working class.The Labour Party is not an anti-imperialist movement, and this is why we do not adopt the same position on the Labour Party solely because it has some support amongst British workers - in fact, the government of Britain has always supported the Israeli state despite the crimes committed against the Palestinian people, and this is exactly why the most recent issue of Socialist Worker calls on the British government to eliminate all military and economic links with Israel and condemn the Israeli government for its invasion of Gaza and ongoing embargo. Regardless of whether you see Hamas as part of the working class, the fact remains that Hamas has been able to sustain an approval rating of around 60% inside the Gaza strip, despite the embargo, because Hamas has been consistent in its opposition to Israeli colonialism.

Oh right. So students got to use their own universities for free. Victory for the Intifada indeed! The victory means that Palestinian students will be able to come to Britain and study at no cost - an important achievement, when we consider that Israel has targeted higher education institutions inside Gaza. It means that students will be able to hold meetings on Palestine whenever they like and organize actions in the future. In all universities currently under occupation, SWP militants are prominent, and Anarchists are absent.

If their reaction in the face of such an unthreatening situation as an SWP steward becoming angryIncidentally, the placard was torn up by someone from the PSC. If someone from the SWP was responsible, our position would be the same, and it would still have been the right thing to do, but it's worth pointing out. The AWL report includes an interesting detail which TAT seems to have missed:

"The lone Anarchist Federation member tried to defend us but didn't have much of an impact"

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2009/01/18/17-january-gaza-protests-around-country

The Feral Underclass

19th January 2009, 01:34

The Labour Party is not an anti-imperialist movement, and this is why we do not adopt the same position on the Labour Party solely because it has some support amongst British workers

No, instead you support reactionary, anti-working class organisations.

The victory means that Palestinian students will be able to come to Britain and study at no cost - an important achievement, when we consider that Israel has targeted higher education institutions inside Gaza. It means that students will be able to hold meetings on Palestine whenever they like and organize actions in the future. In all universities currently under occupation, SWP militants are prominentMiddle class bollocks. What relevance does any of this have ultimately? The fact some students can use their own facilities is meaningless. What about the Palestinian working class or the British working class for that matter. What quantifiable difference does any of this middle class wish-washy bullshit actually mean in the confines of class struggle. Nothing, that's what.

And what Palestinian worker is going to be able to come to Britain to study? Rich kids like you have privileges to talk like this but these things are just not realistic for the rest of us. Middle class sentiments like this typifies the student movement. Fucking pathetic!

and Anarchists are absent.

I know for a fact that's not true. But anyway, who cares. What you've done is utterly pointless and of not significance to anything other than your own middle class posturing. They probably feel really good about themselves and think they're being really radical. They'll probably tell their kinds about when there all Liberal Democrat voters, but who gives a shit?

The AWL report includes an interesting detail which TAT seems to have missed:

"The lone Anarchist Federation member tried to defend us but didn't have much of an impact"

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2009/01/18/17-january-gaza-protests-around-countryWhat do you mean I missed it? And why is that interesting? There was a comrade on the demonstration, so what? What's your point?

BobKKKindle$

19th January 2009, 01:48

What do you mean I missed it? And why is that interesting? There was a comrade on the demonstration, so what? What's your point? There was only one Anarchist on the demonstration. Is that not a sign of your unimportance?

And what Palestinian worker is going to be able to come to Britain to study?The point of a scholarship is that is allows people who might not otherwise be able to attend university to come and study in Britain - and so workers, more than any other section of Palestinian society, are likely to benefit from this achievement, which has been won by the students of Britain - many of whom are working-class in their social origin and political outlook. The implication behind your position seems to be be that the student movement is comprised solely of middle-class students, and that working class-students would never want to occupy their universities in support of an oppressed people. The vast majority of the student population, even students who do come from privileged backgrounds, have the same fundamental interests as the working class, as the government has repeatedly made it clear that they will be willing to reduce the quality of our education and cut back on university funding in order to deal with the economic crisis and compensate for diminished tax revenue. In addition, it is likely that many of the students who are currently in the middle of their degrees will not be able to obtain a job when they graduate - this is why we are trying to create a dynamic, fighting student movement, in place of the current NUS leadership, and this is why we need to do all that we can to link industrial struggles, and student-based struggles.

Liberal/lefty bollocks. It's utter redundant bollocks.

If workers are completely opposed to resisting Zionism, why has Hamas been able to sustain such high levels of support since the movement was democratically elected? The only sensible answer to this question from your viewpoint is that Palestinian workers cannot grasp what is best for them, and so they need to be told not to resist.

The Feral Underclass

19th January 2009, 01:50

Isn't that what the vote for Hamas over Fatah actually meant? It was a vote to continue the struggle against Israel and not settle for sloppy seconds. So if David Cameron is right and "general elections are the only opinion polls which count" (;)) and in the absence of any alternative means at your disposal to ascertain the majority opinion of the Palestinian workers, it seems that we could argue they do want, if not quite war, continued resistance against the Israeli state.

Liberal/lefty bollocks. It's utter redundant bollocks.

Well apart from the fact that I think our ambition should be more than just "putting an opinion and contributing to debate"Well, go to Palestine then.

(we're not a branch of the media!), and the fact that we are not united as an international class in the real world, that speech brought a lump to my trousers.No, we're not but that's besides the point. The actual point is we should be working towards that and it should be our objective. You and the SWP are anti-[working] class so of course just dismissing these sentiments as unrealistic serves a very convenient purpose.

But stop pretending that the SWP support Hamas in any sense except in its struggle against Israeli oppression and murder.I don't give a shit why you support it. I fully grasp your bullshit analysis. The fact is that what you're doing is totally against the working class and if what you're supporting actually managed to achieve its victory over the Israeli state (which ultimately it can't) the working class in Palestine would find themselves under an incredibly repressive regime that has already shown it's true colours towards workers struggle.

Please don't pretend to be a simpleton. There are many other ways of understanding it: (a) Emotionally: people, mindful of the mass slaughter of Palestinian workers, were offended by the suggestion of moral equivalence between Hamas and IDF implied by the slogan.If that's the case why did no one stop him? Just allowing someone's aggressive hysterics to unfold in such an emotional way in front of an entire demonstration of people is clearly not acceptable. Especially when the Sheffield district organiser and an SWP member and RESPECT councillor candidate are stood right next to him.

That rules that out.

(b) Politically: You can't campaign against the slaughter by not taking sides unequivocally against the imperialist aggressor without lapsing into liberal humanitarianism (which I have a lot of sympathy for, but still).Nonsense! People who had the working class in mind wouldn't think twice about what was necessary to support.

Yes, but i wasn't referring to that I'm referring to your rant on page 1, including this: Oh dear.I have no qualms with using violence against reactionary pieces of shit like members of the SWP and in fact I'd take great pleasure in it. You people are fucking scum!

Ah, bless.Find that endearing do you? It's evident to me and hopefully to others that your inability to actually seriously address the anti-class nature of the SWP and resort to these petty and pointless comments just goes to show how reactionary and incapable you people have become.

The Feral Underclass

19th January 2009, 01:54

There was only one Anarchist on the demonstration. Is that not a sign of your unimportance?

I don't know how many anarchists were on that demo. But I have absolutely no illusions about our significance and I've never claimed we have any within this movement. We've no relevance within nationalist, theocratic, anti-Semitic, liberal and anti-working class movements like the one that has unfortunately developed over the last month and that's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. We have no place within it nor do we seek one.

The point of a scholarship is that is allows people who might not otherwise be able to attend university to come and study in Britain - and so workers, more than any other section of Palestinian society, are likely to benefit from this achievement, which has been won by the students of Britain - many of whom are working-class in their social origin and political outlook. The implication behind your position seems to be be that the student movement is comprised solely of middle-class students, and that working class-students would never want to occupy their universities in support of an oppressed people. The vast majority of the student population, even students who do come from privileged backgrounds, have the same fundamental interests as the working class, as the government has repeatedly made it clear that they will be willing to reduce the quality of our education and cut back on university funding in order to deal with the economic crisis and compensate for diminished tax revenue. In addition, it is likely that many of the students who are currently in the middle of their degrees will not be able to obtain a job when they graduate - this is why we are trying to create a dynamic, fighting student movement, in place of the current NUs leadership, and this is why we need to do all that we can to link industrial struggles, and student-based struggles.

Yawn.

Sam_b

19th January 2009, 01:58

It's utter redundant bollocks.

As my great ancestor Plato_b once said: Why?

BobKKKindle$

19th January 2009, 02:02

We've no relevance within nationalist, theocratic, anti-Semitic, liberal and anti-working class movements like the one that has unfortunately developed over the last monthDo you mean the widespread opposition to Israel aggression, which has led to protest marches involving thousands of people, including many who have never become politically active before? How can this movement be anti-semitic, if many of those marching were Jewish, holding placards with the slogan "Jews Against the War"? How can any movement be liberal and anti-semitic at the same time, given that liberalism, as a political ideology, is generally associated with opposition to all forms of intolerance and prejudice?

YawnSo, you agree that your impression of the student movement is flawed?

Zurdito

19th January 2009, 02:05

Bob, I recieved your visitor message, and will respond. I think with all respect that our positions on national liberation are different in some important ways.

Incidentally, the placard was torn up by someone from the PSC.

correction noted. I will edit the post.

If someone from the SWP was responsible, our position would be the same, and it would still have been the right thing to do,

Firstly can I ask, what were the specific demands of the protest? If the placard was not in contradiction with the demands state by the organisers of the protest then we have a particular problem here.

In any case I I think it was a petty if minor incident. I am not scared of the debate on whether or not to equalise Palestinian resistance with Israeli aggression, I think that it is a serious debate to be had within the anti-war left, and the wy to win over people from various positions is not to pettily destroy placards.

If I am not mistaken, on the issues of the Middle East the SWP has persistently entered into fronts with pacifists and other blocs, etc. Which is not necessarilly wrong, for example, to call a protest for anyone opposed to a war or occupation, etc.

Therefore I think it is fair to say that the current leaders of these protests have manouvred to place themselves at the leadership of a broad movement, and should not then use this position to try to suppress debate within the movement. It is pretty unprincipled to try to enjoy the gains of making broad fronts, whilst at the same time trying to make sure only your views are expressed within those fronts. This completely contradicts the Bolsheviks practice of respecting democracy within the RSDLP for example. The Bolshevik pratice is either to set up public fractions within a united front/workers party, which aim to change the line of the movement through convincing the majority, or to leave such organisations and compete against them if their line becomes incompatible to a revolutionary position.

I do not think the practice of manouvering for the leadership of broad front movements, and then using those resources to try to make only your position heard, is the practice of revolutionary marxists. Rather minority views should be respected, unless the majority votes to expel them.

manic expression

19th January 2009, 02:06

Don't kid yourself. The SWP's analysis is not particularly sophisticated. The "different distinctions" are perfectly easy to understand. They're just wrong.

And your message is: Support Hamas.

Yeah, it's so easy to understand that one post later, you blatantly misrepresented it. Stunning stuff.

Anyway, this argument boils down to whether or not you support the Palestinian people's right to resist imperialism. In such cases, unity is always necessary to further the cause of the working class against capitalism. Honestly, if anyone doesn't understand the fact that Hamas is a legitimate member of the resistance, and one that does have considerable popular support among the Palestinian people, they do not understand the nature of crucial struggles today. That's basically it.

If the purists here were around when apartheid was still kicking, they would have held up "No to apartheid! No to the ANC!" placards. Some good that would've done the South African workers. :rolleyes:

The Feral Underclass

19th January 2009, 02:08

Do you mean the widespread opposition to Israel aggression, which has led to protest marches involving thousands of people, including many who have never become politically active before?

Thousands of nationalists and Islamicists you mean and politically active how? Fighting the police? Students "occupying", and I use that word in the loosest possible way, their universities? Weren't they already political?

Look, I'm not going to get into some protracted debate where you romanticise the nature and political make up of this movement that in a few months time won't exist any more.

How can this movement be anti-semitic, if many of those marching were Jewish, holding placards with the slogan "Jews Against the War"? How can any movement be liberal and anti-semitic at the same time, given that liberalism, as a political ideology, is generally associated with opposition to all forms of intolerance and prejudice? Don't be an idiot. There are many characteristics to what has sprung up over the last month, none of which have any attempts to forward class base opposition to what is happening in Gaza except small groups who are attack on demonstrations by Hamas supporters.

So, you agree that your impression of the student movement is flawed?Look, I may not have been around as long as some, but my over a decade involvement in the left has given me a pretty pertinent insight into the nature of these things. The student movement is dominated by middle class wanky liberal/leftist do-gooders and that's a fact.

Of course that's separate to what has happened in the unviersities, which to some extent is positive, at least people are doing something. But the reality is that it's irrelevant and does nothing to advance any class agenda.

Which is typical of the student movement.

The Feral Underclass

19th January 2009, 02:10

Anyway, this argument boils down to whether or not you support the Palestinian people's right to resist imperialism.

No it doesn't.

BobKKKindle$

19th January 2009, 02:14

There's no need to be afraid of offense, Zurdito, we should discuss this - but I'm shortly going to bed, I just wanted to post some of these comments from Palestinians which have been included as part of an article on the ceasefire, published by the BBC:

I am so happy because in the end we won. Their plan was to destroy Gaza and destroy the fighters, but we won.

Hamas has not been damaged. It is not like if they destroy the regime they destroy Hamas – Hamas is part of the Palestinian people.

They damaged the schools, the mosques, the homes. If they think this is a win, then OK, they won

- Raafat, shop worker, Ramallah

They had to stop the war in Gaza. They were killing boys and girls without reason.

Sure Israel is stronger, but it's our land and Hamas must defend it.

I hope there will be peace. But I think the Israelis will continue to kill children. Israeli soldiers are killers and don't like Palestinian people.

I don't know if Hamas will stop fighting.

- Saeda, student, E Jerusalem
When I heard yesterday I was happy, because that's enough killing people.

I think the Israelis went out with a victory, they said they achieved their goals.

Hamas came out from this war less than they were before, they have a lot of work to do to recover, to rebuild the Gaza Strip, but we can't say they destroyed Hamas.

- Imad, shop owner, E Jerusalem
Definitely Israel didn't mean the ceasefire as it seems, there is something behind it.

This is just Israeli propaganda, not stopping the war on Gaza.

They didn't finish the resistance or Hamas. It's still going and it will not be defeated.

- Nayef, shoe seller, Ramallahhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7836660.stm

It seems that most of these messages - many of which are from the urban poor - indicate popular support for Hamas, and the resistance movement as a whole. It would be wrong to assume that these comments can be applied to the whole of the Palestinian working-class and seen as a general representation of what Palestinians believe, but it certainly invalidates the argument that workers are not committed to resistance, and would rather just the accept the situation in Palestine without resorting to armed force against the Israeli state. The first comment, in particular the bolded section, is especially interesting.

Zurdito

19th January 2009, 02:20

If the purists here were around when apartheid was still kicking, they would have held up "No to apartheid! No to the ANC!" placards. Some good that would've done the South African workers. :rolleyes:

It wouldn't have been a good line because it would have implied the two groups were an equal evil.

However to say that the ANC strategy was anti-working class and that their leadership of the movement turned a potentially revolutionary situation into one where the South African working class remains brutally exploited and oppressed, is true. To say that the ANC was unable to end white privelige in South Africa is true. o say that in the "best case scenario" according to their strategy they would lead to only the exploitation of the SA working class by a different set of exploiters (which is not true, they have only integrated to the old elite, not replaced it - showing the lack of revolutionary potential of the bourgeosie on a global level), would have been compeltely true at the time, and it was neccessarry to say so.

So if your logic is of some kind of "stage" where workers have to remain under the leadership of petit-bourgeois organisations through "critical support", overthrowing them at some point in the future, then you are about as much use to the South African or Palestinian working class as the "purists". This is a popular front strategy, however you want to phrase it.

Bobkindles, I suppose from this you also begint o see our differences on national liberation issues. I oppose wording opposition to Hamas in a way that implies equality with Israel, but neither do I think it is acceptable to refrain from constantly, as the forefront of your propaganda, telling the Palestinian working class that it must surpass its current leaders urgently in order to defeat the Israeli occupation.

Only a Palestinian movement reliant on constant mobilisation of the masses, which does not exclude christian and secular palestinains, and which relates to the struggles of the Jewish Israeli working class, can lead to the liberation of the Palestinian masses.

Obviously we do not go to the with the line that Hamas is equally to blame for their plight as Israel is, that is a disgusting insult to any Palestinian or Arab, or nayone oppressed by imperialism.

But neither do we ignore the fact that Hamas is, due to its own position as a defender of certain priveliged interests in society, completely unable to lead a succesful struggle to liberate the Palestinian nation - as current events are showing.

BobKKKindle$

19th January 2009, 02:28

Hit The North

19th January 2009, 02:38

bollocks... utter redundant bollocks...

Well, go to Palestine then... I don't give a shit why you support it. I fully grasp your bullshit analysis...

Jesus! Is it too late to poke you with a stick?

If that's the case why did no one stop him? Because they shared his feelings?

Just allowing someone's aggressive hysterics to unfold in such an emotional way... is clearly not acceptable.I agree. You should learn to control yourself, but...

I have no qualms with using violence against reactionary pieces of shit like members of the SWP and in fact I'd take great pleasure in it. You people are fucking scum!...it seems you can't.

Find that endearing do you? I find it a little worrying that you're an Admin of this board.

It's evident to me and hopefully to others that your inability to actually seriously address the anti-class nature of the SWP and resort to these petty and pointless comments just goes to show how reactionary and incapable you people have become.
"Anti-working class" because a middle class dilettante like you says so? I'm pissing my pants, dear.

Btw, I've posted a link to a SW article which provides a class analysis of earlier in the post. Read it if you like. I know you won't. :)

The Feral Underclass

19th January 2009, 02:43

Because they shared his feelings?

They shared his feelings that it's acceptable to just go on a massive emotional, hysterical flip out on a demo?

...it seems you can't. It's quite calculated and has nothing to do with emotions.

I find it a little worrying that you're an Admin of this board. Oh well.

"Anti-working class" because a middle class dilettante like you says so? I'm pissing my pants, dear.Middle class dilettante? My mother's worked in bars all her life and my dad died a heroin addict. I work a minimum wage job and never got a degree. What are you on about?

Is that how you address all workers that point out your anti-working class nature?

Btw, I've posted a link to a SW article which provides a class analysis of earlier in the post. Read it if you like. I know you won't. :)I've read it.

BobKKKindle$

19th January 2009, 03:03

Look, I'm not going to get into some protracted debate where you romanticise the nature and political make up of this movement It would be stupid to assume that all or even most of the people who participated in the demonstrations are committed socialists and would gladly stand alongside members of the SWP on a rally in favour of abortion rights, or against homophobia, but the point is that, by being part of the movement, and participating in broad initiatives such as StWC, we gain opportunities to make our arguments and win people over to a socialist position. If we refused to cooperate with anyone who does not already share our ideological viewpoint then there would be no point in being politically active, because a failure to reach out and engage with people who are apolitical or hold a mixture of progressive and reactionary ideas will always lead to isolation from the working-class movement and society at large.

in a few months time won't exist any moreHostile commentators said exactly the same thing about StWC when it was first created prior to the invasion of Iraq, and yet, despite the recent lull in activity, StWC still exists, and provided an excellent framework for organizing the most recent demonstrations against Israel.

Don't be an idiot. The movement does contain a range of different groups and tendencies, and this is exactly why socialists need to be ready to intervene and make sure people are exposed to the progressive analysis instead of falling into the hands of reactionaries who might try to divert popular unrest and create divisions within the working class instead of explaining the situation in terms of class conflict and imperialism. The SWP has consistently emphasized the importance of class - John Rees, for example, used the demonstration as a platform to discuss the wave of working-class radicalism against the corrupt regime of Mubarak in Egypt, and in the same speech he explained that the only way to resolve the oppression of the Palestinian people is if the workers of the region as a whole overthrow their corrupt, pro-imperialist governments and establish workers states, in order to provide international working-class solidarity to the struggles of workers living inside Palestine, as part of an international revolution. The same analysis was also included in our most recent issue of Socialist Worker, which BtB linked to earlier.

The student movement is dominated by middle class wanky liberal/leftist do-gooders and that's a fact.If this assertion is true, then surely there's an even greater need for socialists to become part of the student movement and change its political direction, by explaining the links between capitalism, particularly the most recent economic crisis, and the attacks students are going to face in the near future, instead of rejecting the movement in its entirety because the leadership is reformist?

Zurdito

19th January 2009, 03:48

Concerning the issue of new organizations taking the place of Hamas, Zurdito, it seems that our disagreements lie not so much in our actual positions on this important issue, but rather in how, or whether, the position of the SWP is effectively conveyed in our various publications. Yehuda Stern and myself had a brief discussion on this topic after he accussed the SWP of not wanting to replace Hamas with a socialist resistance, in this thread, which you might find interesting: http://www.revleft.com/vb/time-revolution-middle-t99240/index.html

I am sure that in the abstract you recognise the need for a new leadership to the Palestinian resistance, and believe your strategy is the best way to acheive this.

In that thread you talk about the need to create socialist parties in countries where mass anti-imperialist movements led by islamists are prominent. the trouble here is that the working class movement and the left does exist in such countries (in some to a significant degree), and are brutally persecuted by Islamism, often with the help of imeprialism (for example the Muslim Brotherhood, parent organisation of Hamas, developed with the aid of British imperialism). So "critical support" for the leadership, in order to grow with inside the movement and then at some future stage overthrow them, seems to me like an abstract principle.

I think the point here is partly that leninists do not "build" by adpting our programme to the consciousness within a movement and then when we are big enough, taking it over. In fact I think tht slogans act as motors of action and growth, and whether you have influence or not in many cases is determined precisely by the adequacy of your slogans, and if there is a more radical, more left, potentially revoluionary vanguard developing within the resistance, as both of our straegies depend upon, then a slogan is a way to crystalise the thoughts of such sectors and to unite them with a purpose and aim which otherwise will remain lost under the dominane of the most backward sections of the struggle.

Likewise with the Palestinian and Arab left, brutally persectued by Islamism. Proposing to unite the Arab left around a lowest common denominator slogan of "critical support" does little to contribute to the ideological development of existing groups and militants.

So regardless of the SWP's influence on the Palestinain mass movement, I think that the left as a whoe, on a global level, can gain influence, at first among the Arab left and a vanguard, by putting forward an offensive programme for the region whereby we seek to confront the reacionary leaderships of various resistance movements (aconfrontatin which obviously takes different means depending on where we are - and the danger of carrying this out makes the international aspect especially important) with positive slogans of our own. The point is to create pole of attraction for themsot advanced workers in such countries, which is largely absent today, and leads to their constant submission to the most backwards tendencies.

GX.

19th January 2009, 03:52

So TAT wants to beat up the SWP for being "reactionaries" but would have no problem with an idiot provocateur parading around a demo with such an obviously dishonest sign? How confusing.

manic expression

19th January 2009, 03:54

However to say that the ANC strategy was anti-working class and that their leadership of the movement turned a potentially revolutionary situation into one where the South African working class remains brutally exploited and oppressed, is true.

And that is precisely why I used that example. If you ask ANY South African worker whether they think getting rid of apartheid was a good thing, I'm pretty sure all of them will agree it was. The ANC, as bourgeois as they are (and they are very bourgeois), represented a step forward for the South African working class. Anyone who disagrees with this is fooling themselves.

If you disagree, why don't you go ask them yourself?

If we are unwilling to show unity in the face of imperialism, we shouldn't call ourselves revolutionaries. To abandon the ANC in the struggle against apartheid and imperialism would have been beyond stupid and counterproductive (and that's why the SACP stood by the ANC). To do the same to Hamas would be just as disastrous.

So if your logic is of some kind of "stage" where workers have to remain under the leadership of petit-bourgeois organisations through "critical support", overthrowing them at some point in the future, then you are about as much use to the South African or Palestinian working class as the "purists". This is a popular front strategy, however you want to phrase it.

Phrase it that way if you will, but if you actually think the anti-imperialist struggle is of no use to the South African or Palestinian working classes, I dare you to tell that to them. Go ahead. The point is that apartheid needed to be destroyed for anything else to be possible; the same holds true with Israeli terror in Palestine. It really is that simple.

Only a Palestinian movement reliant on constant mobilisation of the masses, which does not exclude christian and secular palestinains, and which relates to the struggles of the Jewish Israeli working class, can lead to the liberation of the Palestinian masses.

The Palestinian resistance, to a great extent, already does this.

But neither do we ignore the fact that Hamas is, due to its own position as a defender of certain priveliged interests in society, completely unable to lead a succesful struggle to liberate the Palestinian nation - as current events are showing.

Hamas is capable of being a vital part of the resistance against Israeli imperialism. Is it capable of overthrowing capitalism and liberating the working class from capital? No, but the Palestinian workers are being killed by imperialism first and foremost, and that must be destroyed by any means necessary.

No it doesn't.

Great argument there. Too bad it doesn't change the fact that this discussion DOES boil down to whether or not someone supports the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli violence. Do you or do you not support the Palestinian liberation movement? That's the question.

peaccenicked

19th January 2009, 04:06

"No to IDF -No to Hamas." is a very simplistic idiotic slogan and to say that is not treating both the same is utterly idiotic. Not that they are the same, it does not say that the IDF are Hamas. It says no to both in equal measure.
There is no getting away from this. There is no class analysis in the banner. There is no critique of Hamas in the banner. It just says no.
What I understand by the banner is that Hamas has no right to fire rockets at Israel.
Despite only there being 13 Israel casualties 3 of them civilian and over 1300 Palestinian casualties seems to be of no matter. I find the banner utterly offensive on basic humanitarian grounds. That the brutality of both sides be treated in equal measure.
I feel angry at the AWL for being so insensitive to the situation. No amount of criticism
of the politics of Hamas or the Palestine factions at war can alter the fact Gaza is faced with the life threatening siege
of Gaza by the Zionist state. The Zionists set up Hamas as Islamist foil to Arafat's PLO.
However since then they represent the government and mini state opposition to Israeli genocide, and have legitimacy in their struggle.
Hamas is the only focus of resistance to this genocide. This is primary.

However, the struggle for women's rights is a universal to some degree and it is being done within Hamas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/18/israel.islam
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/18/israel.islam)
The Damascus-based central council of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions (ICATU) condemned on Sunday the "brutal" Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip as a "war crime and systematic state terrorism,".

The focus on the politics of Hamas under these conditions amounts to left posing and a diversion, best raised under a different banner than Stopping Israeli aggression.

The AWL are acting as in this context, outside purpose of a demonstration, and are holding a counter demo internally.

They should march separately or perhaps they should organise a contigent with the IDF supporters, who have also been marching, and would probably just as welcoming.
They are just outrageous gimmick mongers.

benhur

19th January 2009, 06:42

Arguing with Sam and the two Bobs is like talking to a wall, at least with the wall, one gets an echo. These blokes can't even do that much, it's always the same, simplistic arguments over and over.:rolleyes: Hamas is good, because it was elected. So Bush must be good, because he was elected, according to their flawed sense of logic. Truth be told, the two Bobs and Sam are better off as hamas militants, rather than as progressive leftists.

Zurdito

19th January 2009, 06:45

And that is precisely why I used that example. If you ask ANY South African worker whether they think getting rid of apartheid was a good thing, I'm pretty sure all of them will agree it was.

Yes, I support getting rid of apartheid, justlike I support the Palestinian struggle against Israeli apartheid and occupation. This was fairly obvious from my post.

The ANC, as bourgeois as they are (and they are very bourgeois), represented a step forward for the South African working class. Anyone who disagrees with this is fooling themselves.

If you disagree, why don't you go ask them yourself?

What, do you speak for the whole South African working class?

Working classes are divided within themselves and some sections are more advanced than others.

Obviously the ANC had mass support, but in 1994 for example, 38% of South Africans, most of them black and not bourgeois, did not vote for the ANC. What about the Workers List in 1994 for example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_List_Party

I think you are fooling yourself if you want to jump straight to a mass-movement slogans before the far left has even grouped a significant vanguard together to compete for the support of the masses. Such an approach only ends in populism and in supporting demagogic leaders who aim to isolate the vanguard.

If we are unwilling to show unity in the face of imperialism, we shouldn't call ourselves revolutionaries.

"Unity" in the same way that the Bolsheviks showed unity against Kornilov's troops? Sure. But you are talking about something else.

Phrase it that way if you will, but if you actually think the anti-imperialist struggle is of no use to the South African or Palestinian working classes, I dare you to tell that to them. Go ahead.

Well firstly it is obvious from what I have argued here that I don't think this,and secondly your style of arguing is quite false because if I wanted to state that reactionary position, I am sure I could get a reasomable amount of support from reactionary, defeated sectors of the class. Likewise in many oppressed nations I could even get minority support by telling people not to fight imperialism. But I wouldn't do it because I base my opinions on what is necessarry not what is popular.

The point is that apartheid needed to be destroyed for anything else to be possible; the same holds true with Israeli terror in Palestine. It really is that simple.

yes, your theory really is that simple. a popular front theory which has failed time and time again.

The Palestinian resistance, to a great extent, already does this.

Really?

Hamas' politics exclude women, homosexuals, and non-muslims, they do not appeal to the Jewish or western classes for solidarity, and they are deeply suspicious of mass action, prefering an elitist and heirarchcial concept of guerrilla war. Not to mention that they oppose the working class having any independent involvement in the struggle, rather it must submit itself to the clerical leadership, or be considered as much of an enemy as Israel or the western imperialists.

It really is that simple.

Hamas is capable of being a vital part of the resistance against Israeli imperialism.

This is where I disagree. The existence of Islamism in the Arab states is a cancer which divides the working class and makes its anger be channelled into forms which cannot succeed, and whose main role is to wipe out any left or progressive forces. For this reason the western imperialists have time and time again supported islamist leaders. This reactionary force is one of the main obstacles the working class solidarity whic could liberate the Palestinians.

I do agree that many Palestinians who want to resist look to Hamas as the only answer, because they are the ones resisting, and that such people play a role in defending Palestinian lives from Israel and resisting the oppressive occupation. But the fact that they are channelled by the nefarious Hamas leadership helps keep them in oppression.

Is it capable of overthrowing capitalism and liberating the working class from capital? No, but the Palestinian workers are being killed by imperialism first and foremost, and that must be destroyed by any means necessary.

Why do you differentiate "capitalism" and "imperialism"? Imperialism is just the stage of capitalism we are in. You cannot oppose one without opposing the other. Hamas is for that reason not capable of liberating the Palestinians from zionist and western oppression. Not a single Arab or central Asian ruling class has managed to liberate their country from imperialism, despite all their "anti-imperialisms", secular-nationalist, or religious.

Zurdito

19th January 2009, 06:58

Hamas is good, because it was elected. So Bush must be good, because he was elected, according to their flawed sense of logic.

A point here though is that the west demanded free and fair elections for Palestine, they were held, Hamas won, and so Gaza was placed uner 3 years of seige as a punishment. Thsi exposes the hypocrisy of theimperilists. It is improtant to publicise this fact in theimeprialsit coutnries. This does not mean supporting Hamas.

Also, the Palesinians have a basic democratic right to have their elections of bourgeois representatives elected. As a trotskyist you surely agree, that we stand sie by side with oppressed people's fighting for the basic rights of the bourgeois revolutions (national sovereignity, right to organise and protest, right to free and fair elections) which under imperilism ahve not been and cannot be completed. We say that the only ay to acheive these is socialism, but we do not make our support for such struggles conditional on the mass movements first becoming socialist. This was Trotsky's position.

In no way does that mean giving support to the leaders, but we say that a nation's right to manage its own affairs should be respected. Therefore only the Palestinian working class has the right to overthrow Hamas, no-one else. So when Israel tries to do it, we stand by the Palestinains right to resist. Regardless of the fact that we should never argue for them to poitically support Hamas, and should in fact at all times argue against this.

peaccenicked

19th January 2009, 07:19

Hamas is not the bolsheviks, not even the mensheviks but they are a force on the ground
that is defending Gaza from direct annihilation which is a product of the Israeli seige.
What they can achieve is dependent on international pressure. Socialist leaderships at best call for israeli and arab workers to unite as part of the international struggle
for socialism as if Gazans can forget their desperate daily battle for life.
I call on socialists to get real and bring to bear as much international pressure as possible to end the siege immediately.
Any role the workers organizations can play in this the better.
Pragmatism or death.
Popular front? There is no fronts except the Palestinian factions tossing hand made rockets and killing soldiers in Gaza.

Devrim

19th January 2009, 07:21

I don't see any evidence that anyone was attacked. They were confronted and their banner was taken from them, after they were asked to stand separately from the majority of the demonstrators who did not agree with the slogan. Let's not be too "liberal" in our attitude to this kind of "muscular democracy" which has been a hallmark of working class politics. Otherwise we'll end up like TAT, sounding like the Daily Mail.

Maybe the word 'attacked' took it too far, however the central point here is not about the SWP's support for HAMAS, which has been argued across many threads, but about this action.

Certainly, the SWP physical imposed their political line here even if the guy wasn't attacked.

Other Trotskyists recognise this too:

I do not think the practice of manouvering for the leadership of broad front movements, and then using those resources to try to make only your position heard, is the practice of revolutionary marxists. Rather minority views should be respected, unless the majority votes to expel them.

Devrim

Devrim

19th January 2009, 07:28

Weyman Bennett's comments that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever” were absolutely repugnant Source? Oh, of course, Weekly Worker and Devirm's anonymous mates.

This is pretty dishonest behaviour. Bob Kindles is quite happy to smear sources, however, if we look back at the thread where this first came up, he hasn't said it is untrue:http://www.revleft.com/vb/jew-free-holocaust-t98069/index.html?p=1334651#post1334651

So, I ask again Bob is this categorically untrue? Can you assure us that these things weren't said by an SWP CC member?

If people haven't read the quote here it is again:

A relatively large number of people on the demonstration carried Hamas or other Islamist placards and banners. There was some shouting of Allahu akbar, but from what I can gather there were no anti-semitic slogans shouted. Though Weyman Bennett of the SWP’s central committee was heard demanding that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever”

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/752/marchingforgaza.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/752/marchingforgaza.html)

Devrim

Zurdito

19th January 2009, 08:01

Hamas is not the bolsheviks, not even the mensheviks but they are a force on the ground

you cannot make the comparison, Hamas' politics are quasi-fascist. it is the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood, a hardline reactionary religious group which has in Egypt for example been used by imperialism against secular Arab nationalists.

That is defending Gaza from direct annihilation which is a product of the Israeli seige.

I agree, at this moment it is playing that role, which is why potentially progressive are drawn to it and express their struggle for survival and liberation under its command. So we must support the struggle of the Palestinian masses, while saying that the current leadership cannot bring liberation.

Socialist leaderships at best call for israeli and arab workers to unite as part of the international struggle
for socialism as if Gazans can forget their desperate daily battle for life.

yes but why do I keep earing this line? under capitalism the majority of humanity struggles to stay alive, the way out is to fight for socialism. I do not see how Hamas startegy is going to lead the Palestinians out of the situationw here they are struggling for life. This is a mechanical way of looking at it, "first we support anyone against theimperialists, then we talk about revolution". The point is that the only force capable of beating the imperialists is the working class

I call on socialists to get real and bring to bear as much international pressure as possible to end the siege immediately.

I agree 100%. Who here disagrees No one in this thread disagrees AFAIK.

Decolonize The Left

19th January 2009, 08:10

Now, I am not a member of the SWP, or the AF, or any of the organizations mentioned in this thread.

As an outsider perspective, it seems to me that it is only coherent to support the working-class peoples of Palestine and Israel. This naturally means opposing both the Israeli government and Hamas.

I understand the rational for supporting Hamas (as has been elaborated in this thread), but this seems to depart greatly from an analysis based upon historical materialism. In fact, it seems instead to rely upon nationalistic and identity-politics to overcome a conflict which is primarily based upon nationalism and religion (identity-politics). This not only seems self-contradictory but also highly foolish.

Furthermore, all this talk about how many members of which organization were at which protest and what this proves is infantile and ought to be halted for several reasons:
1) It does nothing but support the division of the left.
2) These divisions are entirely counter-productive to the goal of all leftist organizations.
3) These divisions mean very little in actuality but are clearly a product of egoism and childlike pettiness.
4) The 'facts' cannot be adequately determined and hence the entire discussion is speculation.

5) Now, there are most certainly going to be differences in theory and ideology within the umbrella term of the left. BUT, the hang on these differences and exploit them is what our capitalist slave-drivers do in order to divide and weaken us. We ought to recognize that and step above that for the sake of workers everywhere.

I hope we can.

- August

Yehuda Stern

19th January 2009, 10:48

With regards to the original subject: I have nothing but hate for the Zionist AWL (and I dare anyone to challenge me on this characterization - they are openly Zionist, support Israel against the Palestinians and support a two state solution). But if British leftists allow the SWP to ban people from the AWL to demonstrate with their slogans, than the SWP's rivals from the left are sure to be banned next. Stifling of opinions in left wing demos is first and foremost dangerous to revolutionaries.

As for the remark which Devrim alleges an SWP CC member made, I obviously don't know if it's true or not. I do, however, know that the SWP very much does not want to have anything to do with Israeli Jewish anti-Zionists and Marxists, and I also know that in one anti-war conference, one of their members complained that "the only people who voted against [a motion in support of Hizb Allah] were Jews."

I don't think the SWP is anti-Semitic as a political organization; I find it very easy to believe, though, that its eclecticism, its lack of any minimal political criteria for membership, and its pandering to nationalism and fundamentalist groups opens its doors to all sorts of negative influences.

redguard2009

19th January 2009, 10:54

It's kind of easy to sit on a comfortable perch and rain down criticisms and condemnations on two opposing reactionary forces going at each other's innocent civilians. I've always been pretty turned off by a lot of left-communist and anarchists tendencies to sit on the sidelines whenever any sort of political conflict arises, arguing that we should be "supporting the working class" as if it were the latest fad.

I mean, it's really simple, I guess. "Support the working class" is a fairly vague term that can easily cover a whole slew of different events and incidents. But I thought communists were supposed to be materialists and stuff like that?

I mean, when I look at the newspaper everyday (I don't bother buying it, but they always seem to have some interesting quip on the front page as I walk by the news stands), it's fairly obvious, the material impact of this latest conflict. 13 dead Israelis, 1300 dead Arabs. But all's fair in love and class war, right? Who kills more of whom doesn't really matter, because both of them are wrong. Ultimately, whoever the victor is, the workers are the losers.

It's a load of shit. For all the evil, nefarious "islamicism" of Hamas, have they gone so far as to butcher 1300 people in less than a month? Have they plunged a million and a half people (or should I say workers, so you'll care more) into absolute poverty? Torn apart the entire social infastructure of Gaza with thousand-pound bombs and guided missiles? Turned that entire section of the country into an enormous self-sustaining cemetary that nobody can escape and no help can reach?

Yeah, Hamas are some evil buggers, but I just saw a cool little quote: "Sometimes we shoot in the same direction". That pretty much sums it up for me. In the grand scheme of things -- or atleast the scheme that matters to Arab workers in the here and now, the threat of Israeli bombs and tanks far outweighs Hamas' fundamentalist agenda. I can't believe some of you are actually arguing that Palestinians do not deserve to be protected because those who would do that protecting are "bad people". There isn't going to be some magical, spontaneous worker's uprising in the middle east that will save them, Israeli workers aren't going to shrug off their oppressive chains and IDF soldiers are not going to "shoot the generals on their own side". Palestinians are dying and suffering at a maddening rate and all you're concerned about is bickering about proclaiming who can and can not justifiably fight the people that are slaughtering them.

Honestly, I get it. If there ever comes an oppurtunity where Hamas can be defeated ideologically, I'll be right there beside you, fighting against them. But now's not the time. The immediate threat of a strong Hamas government is absolutely inconsequential compared to the bloodshed being spilled by Israel. So stop sitting on the sidelines and get the fuck in there!

manic expression

19th January 2009, 11:38

Yes, I support getting rid of apartheid, justlike I support the Palestinian struggle against Israeli apartheid and occupation. This was fairly obvious from my post.

I was simply pointing out that unity with anti-imperialist forces is critical in such struggles: opposing imperialism means supporting organizations like Hamas and the ANC in such circumstances.

You say you support the struggle against apartheid, but you fail to realize that supporting said struggle would have meant standing with the decidedly bourgeois ANC. The same is true here with Hamas: do you or do you not support the Palestinian struggle against imperialism?

What, do you speak for the whole South African working class?

Working classes are divided within themselves and some sections are more advanced than others.

I never claimed the ANC has the support of all South African workers, my only claim was that they think it's much better now than it was before 1994. The reason apartheid isn't still around is because communists and anti-imperialist bourgeois factions (the ANC) stood together against imperialism. That was a step forward for the South African working class.

The fact that South African workers are starting to vote for non-ANC factions (which will likely increase in the next decade) basically proves what I've been saying. Getting rid of apartheid has allowed the South African workers to pursue its interests with far more success; the SACP can now openly organize and promote revolutionary socialist politics, whereas before 1994 they were treated as a common terrorist organization and had few chances to carry out socialist agitation in earnest. That's a step forward for the workers.

"Unity" in the same way that the Bolsheviks showed unity against Kornilov's troops? Sure. But you are talking about something else.

Russia itself was a major imperialist power which made a standing policy out of stomping on the rights of peoples to self-determination ("the prisonhouse of nations"). One of the Bolsheviks' key platform planks was self-determination, and Lenin was quite adamant that communists should fully support such such struggles.

Well firstly it is obvious from what I have argued here that I don't think this,and secondly your style of arguing is quite false because if I wanted to state that reactionary position, I am sure I could get a reasomable amount of support from reactionary, defeated sectors of the class. Likewise in many oppressed nations I could even get minority support by telling people not to fight imperialism. But I wouldn't do it because I base my opinions on what is necessarry not what is popular.

Don't run away from what you said:

So if your logic is of some kind of "stage" where workers have to remain under the leadership of petit-bourgeois organisations through "critical support", overthrowing them at some point in the future, then you are about as much use to the South African or Palestinian working class as the "purists".

So, to you, unity with the ANC against apartheid was of "no use" to the South African workers. Nothing I said misrepresented this, you're the only one attempting that much.

yes, your theory really is that simple. a popular front theory which has failed time and time again.

It got rid of apartheid, something just about every worker thinks is a good thing. What have the purists done?

Really?

Hamas' politics exclude women, homosexuals, and non-muslims, they do not appeal to the Jewish or western classes for solidarity, and they are deeply suspicious of mass action, prefering an elitist and heirarchcial concept of guerrilla war. Not to mention that they oppose the working class having any independent involvement in the struggle, rather it must submit itself to the clerical leadership, or be considered as much of an enemy as Israel or the western imperialists.

It really is that simple.

First, you were talking about Christian and secular forces, don't change your own subject. Second, Hamas is not against non-Muslims, they have always stated they envision a society where Christian, Jew and Muslim live side-by-side. Next, they do work with elements of the PFLP in resisting Israeli aggression, which disproves your claim of anti-secular. Hamas' backward conclusions on different issues is something to remember, but it has nothing to do with whether or not socialists should support them in the face of imperialism. Nothing. Applying your logic, communists should have disavowed supporting the ANC because they promoted a stupid line on AIDS/HIV (they still do). It's tangential and puritanical.

I think your characterization of Hamas' connection to the Palestinian people is objectively absurd. They are far and away the most important social organization for most Palestinian families, and they provide a great deal of relief to Palestinian workers. Did I say they are pushing class struggle? No, because my argument is that although they are not a revolutionary socialist organization, they are still a vital and indispensable part of the Palestinian liberation struggle. To oppose Hamas is to denounce the ongoing resistance against Zionism.

This is where I disagree. The existence of Islamism in the Arab states is a cancer which divides the working class and makes its anger be channelled into forms which cannot succeed, and whose main role is to wipe out any left or progressive forces. For this reason the western imperialists have time and time again supported islamist leaders. This reactionary force is one of the main obstacles the working class solidarity whic could liberate the Palestinians.

The actual cancer is that most Arab states have gotten real close to Israeli and American imperialism over the last few decades. Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other states have essentially tossed aside any support for the Palestinian struggle.

The imperialists, for their part, support "Islamist" elements whenever it's convenient (like the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan), and duly oppose them whenever it's convenient (the Islamic forces in Iran). To say the imperialists are consistently concerned with anything but their profit margins is to miss the point.

So no, Islamism is not really the problem in the middle east, American and Israeli imperialism is, and to suggest the former is to buy the latter's line.

I do agree that many Palestinians who want to resist look to Hamas as the only answer, because they are the ones resisting, and that such people play a role in defending Palestinian lives from Israel and resisting the oppressive occupation. But the fact that they are channelled by the nefarious Hamas leadership helps keep them in oppression.

At this point, Hamas is the LAST thing keeping Palestinians oppressed. Hamas has been more effective than anyone else in combating Israeli belligerence, and has also been pivotal in providing social services to the Palestinian people. Hamas, certainly, is not oppressing Palestinians right now, that must be credited to Israeli tanks and bombs and warplanes.

Just to reiterate: unity with such an organization in the face of imperialist aggression is necessary for the liberation of the Palestinian people, just like unity with the ANC was necessary for the liberation of the South African people.

Why do you differentiate "capitalism" and "imperialism"? Imperialism is just the stage of capitalism we are in. You cannot oppose one without opposing the other. Hamas is for that reason not capable of liberating the Palestinians from zionist and western oppression.

Not all bourgeois forces as explicitly pro-imperialist. They all have the potential to be imperialist themselves, let there be no doubt, but to think the bourgeoisie is monolithic in its support of American imperialist interests is just silly. The ANC and Hamas are good examples of bourgeois factions which have promoted working-class interests in the face of imperialism. As such, to refuse unity with them is counterproductive from a working-class perspective.

And you keep ignoring the fact that the ANC did liberate the South African workers from apartheid. Claiming that Hamas cannot do the same is an empty slogan and nothing more.

BobKKKindle$

19th January 2009, 11:58

This naturally means opposing both the Israeli government and Hamas.What does this actually mean? Simply saying we oppose both actors is ambiguous, because they are not equal, both in terms of their military power, and their position in the capitalist world-system. All socialists oppose Hamas in the sense that we disagree with Hamas ideologically on a whole range of different issues including the rights of women, the legitimacy of homosexuality, and the desirability of a classless society, but the question we need to deal with is whether these ideological disagreements should lead to us abandoning the military struggle of the Palestinian people against the Israeli state, given that this struggle is currently being carried out through Hamas, on the grounds that anti-imperialist struggle is only acceptable and worthy of our support when it is being conducted by a progressive, socialist organization? Is the right to fight back against imperialism conditional on Palestinian workers already being committed socialists and militant feminists when they become part of the resistance struggle? We need to base our answers on a materialist analysis, and recognize that although Hamas is a movement which reflects the class interests of an aspirant bourgeoisie, it is progressive in its capacity as an anti-imperialist movement.

But if British leftists allow the SWP to ban people from the AWL to demonstrate with their slogansThe SWP didn't "ban" anyone - we merely supported a the PSC decision to rip up a racist placard. If closet Zionists want to go on a pro-Palestine demonstration then that's fine and we don't have the power to stop them, but as socialists we will fight against placards carrying racist and immature messages.

1) It does nothing but support the division of the left.How so? The AWL are Zionists and pro-imperialists in every respect - their conference voted down a motion to call for the immediate withdrawl of troops from Afghanistan.

Wanted Man

19th January 2009, 12:01

I think it's a very poor response. It shows that this group has no qualms with using physical pressure to keep other political lines out of demonstrations. It shows a dangerous effort to monopolise the resistance. Other left groups have pointed out this tendency in several countries, and have made accusations that this is their strategy, meaning that they intentionally squash dissent and monopolise movements. This is basically what happens when you become so dogmatic that you already think that you are "the vanguard", and that all other groups are just sects who are irrelevant to the working class, so they only have to be tolerated at best.

On the other hand, I can't really feel sorry for these clowns who take the "third camp" line to its ridiculous extreme conclusions. Clearly, they play no meaningful part in the movement against imperialism. If they take this position, their presence at such a demo is just a provocation. It should be made clear from the start that they should either show meaningful solidarity or piss off. Instead of making a big scene, smashing the placard.

I also don't see why some anarchists are complaining. Clearly, some of them don't consider themselves part of the movement for Palestine at all. If they had been a meaningful part of the protest, they would not have to sit by and complain about the actions of the SWP and PSC.

It's basically the same here: many anarchists join the protests and just participate, which is good. But there are also some who don't. They first called for a "black bloc against God and state", which wasn't taken seriously and never actually showed up. So now you sometimes see contributions in Indymedia from people who claim to be anarchists and object to the mere presence of muslim immigrants and communists at the demos. They liberally link to neocon and zionist anti-muslim/immigrant rhetoric and are using some isolated (but still disgusting, like groups of youngsters chanting "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas") incidents to justify this and accuse all muslims and all of the left of being anti-semitic.

You always have people like this who claim to be "left" or "anarchists", but are usually just egoists or provocateurs. They are rightly ignored by the majority.

BobKKKindle$

19th January 2009, 12:21

It shows a dangerous effort to monopolise the resistanceNot at all - the AWL is not part of the resistance against Israeli occupation, nor do they want to be, instead they try and use demonstrations as an opportunity to promote pro-Zionist opinions and party literature and obstruct the work of anti-imperialist organizations like the SWP. Everyone on the left in the UK knows that the AWL is a Zionist group with no place in a radical movement. This is the same organization which opposed the withdrawal of imperialist troops from occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, criticized other socialists for not supporting state repression against Muslim women living in France who choose to wear the veil at school, and in every single one of their articles they refer to all movements and organizations which derive some of their ideas from Islam as "clerical fascist", displaying a complete lack of class analysis. We wouldn't let Nazis display their slogans at a Palestine demonstration, so why should we accept Zionists like the AWL?

Wanted Man

19th January 2009, 12:40

I know, and I agree. I didn't make that statement because of the "victims", they can go fuck themselves. It's just about the methods that were used. Who else can be expelled? The SWP have been accused of trying to monopolise resistance and generally having a badly record of competitiveness when it comes to their "popular fronts". I can't say for sure whether it's justified, but the criticism comes from more than just zionist apologist loonies or sectarians.

BobKKKindle$

19th January 2009, 12:52

It's just about the methods that were used. Who else can be expelled? The SWP have been accused of trying to monopolise resistance and generally having a badly record of competitiveness when it comes to their "popular fronts

Even the article published by the AWL acknowledges that the decision to take action against the Zionist holding the placard was made by the PSC, the SWP merely supported the decision, and even then the AWL member was still allowed to chant Zionist slogans, calling for two states - and so clearly this was not an attempt to restrict the scope of resistance. The accussations made against the SWP concerning involvement in groups such as StWC, which are not popular, but united fronts because they are led by individuals who represent working-class organizations, are baseless, because the SWP has always been willing to work alongside other socialist organizations and progressive forces, even when doing so has forced us to look beyond the interests of our own party. This thread, however, it not the place to discuss the strategies and history of the SWP.

Guerrilla22

19th January 2009, 13:04

you fail to realize that supporting said struggle would have meant standing with the decidedly bourgeois ANC

Not to get off topic here, but the ANC was a Marxist political/guerrilla group. The former government forced their hand so to speak by making the inclusion of a clause protecting private property in the new constitution a necessary condition for the apartheid government stepping down. Of course, the ANC then abandoned any and all socailist principles once they won the first election. N E ways, back to the discussion on Palestine, Hamas, the SWP ect.

Devrim

19th January 2009, 13:18

The SWP didn't "ban" anyone - we merely supported a the PSC decision to rip up a racist placard. If closet Zionists want to go on a pro-Palestine demonstration then that's fine and we don't have the power to stop them, but as socialists we will fight against placards carrying racist and immature messages.

What is racist about the slogan "No To IDF No To Hamas"?

I think it is quite ironic that an organisation that talks about 'white socialists', issues leaflets where they forget to mention that Jews died in the holocaust, and have members who call for members of a certain ethnic group to "go back to where they came from" has the cheek to call anybody racist.

Now I don't think that the SWP is an anti-Semitic organisation. I agree with Yehuda's coments above:

I don't think the SWP is anti-Semitic as a political organization; I find it very easy to believe, though, that its eclecticism, its lack of any minimal political criteria for membership, and its pandering to nationalism and fundamentalist groups opens its doors to all sorts of negative influences.

Calling the AWL racists is pure slander, and yet again the typical way for the SWP to respond to criticism.

Devrim

nuisance

19th January 2009, 13:28

Needless to say, if he tried to smash a placard of mine like that, he'd get a few in the face. Personally I find the actions of the crowd to be slightly disturbing as they watched on as such intimadatory machoism was displayed on a demostration. The sign wasn't inflammatory and only emphasised a position of solidarity with the working class, of both nations. However I don't want to be drawn into this ridculous *****fest that this has disvolved into, but the SWPs self-importance is everso present here.

Devrim

19th January 2009, 13:43

Needless to say, if he tried to smash a placard of mine like that, he'd get a few in the face.

Yes, but then again I think that in general people like that find it much easier to bully small women like the one holding the placard.

Devrim

nuisance

19th January 2009, 13:51

Yes, but then again I think that in general people like that find it much easier to bully small women like the one holding the placard.

Devrim
No wonder they also supported a sexist organisation like Hamas.

peaccenicked

19th January 2009, 13:55

yes but why do I keep hearing this line? under capitalism the majority of humanity struggles to stay alive, the way out is to fight for socialism. I do not see how Hamas startegy is going to lead the Palestinians out of the situationw here they are struggling for life. This is a mechanical way of looking at it, "first we support anyone against theimperialists, then we talk about revolution". The point is that the only force capable of beating the imperialists is the working class

I had to laugh, at the use of the term "mechanical". Almost every article from the left press mechanically calls for the union of the Isreali and Arab working class. Or the unity of the workers in a national struggle against imperialism. It is a ritual of the left.
The impression given is that socialism resolves all of capitalism's problems and that the struggle for reforms and against imperialism ought to be subsumed into the socialist struggle. The bottom line about the socialist struggle is that it ought to be lead by us.
This is what we have as the sectarian analyses of the whole left.
Lenin who made mistakes in " What is to be done?" about Partyism at least was not
a sectarian.
"The conclusion that follows from all these critical remarks of Marx’s is clear: the working class should be the last to make a fetish of the national question, since the development of capitalism does, not necessarily awaken all nations to independent life. But to brush aside the mass national movements once they have started, and to refuse to support what is progressive in them means, in effect, pandering to nationalistic prejudices, that is, recognising “one’s own nation” as a model nation (or, we would add, one possessing the exclusive privilege of forming a state)."
I keep on hearing there is nothing progressive about Hamas. If anything we only hear about the reactionary nature of Hamas, and political islam. These mass movements are treated as a dead weight for the socialist cause, but they are were the workers are and like the fenian movement of Ireland which was reactionary ie christian. Maybe political christian. (http://www.libraryireland.com/HullHistory/Appendix2b.php)
And there is those of us like James Connolly who is given this appraisal by Ted Grant .
"
The behaviour of the nationalist leaders came as no surprise to Connolly, who always approached the national liberation struggle from a class point of view. He never had any trust in the bourgeois and petit bourgeois Republicans, and tirelessly worked to build an independent movement of the working class as the only guarantee for the re conquest of Ireland. Since his death there have been many attempts to erase his real identity as a revolutionary socialist and present him as just one more nationalist. This is utterly false. One week before the Rising he warned the Citizens Army: "The odds against us are a thousand to one. But if we should win, hold onto your rifles because the Volunteers may have a different goal. Remember, we are not only for political liberty, but for economic liberty as well."

have the notion of uninterrupted revolution. A notion that left has abandoned as it has abandoned the national question in general in favour of sectarian isolation.

The Feral Underclass

19th January 2009, 13:56

My laptop cable broke and it's difficult for me to go into long drawn out political discussions at work.

Needless to say, many of you are wrong. Mostly Manic Expression and the two Bob's.

Charles Xavier

19th January 2009, 13:58

That not only makes absolutely no sense, you're implying that Left communists would support anti-Semitism. Or are you trying to equate Hamas with the persecution of the Jews in Nazi occupied Europe?

Don't be a fucking idiot all your life.
Yes I'm am trying to equate the Palestinian people and their resistance groups with the persecution of the jews, gypsies, communists and trade unionists in Nazi occupied Europe.

The Feral Underclass

19th January 2009, 14:02

Yes I'm am trying to equate the Palestinian people and their resistance groups with the persecution of the jews, gypsies, communists and trade unionists in Nazi occupied Europe.

Well, then you're an idiot.

I've studied the holocaust extensively and in no way is it similar to the holocaust. That's just an exteme and ridiculous claim to make and goes to show that you have no real understanding of what is going on.

Although I'd be interested to see you tell me how they're the same?

peaccenicked

19th January 2009, 14:23

Although I'd be interested to see you tell me how they're the same?
They are not the same, though George Galloway puts it like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFzPm2GWtLA

Devrim

19th January 2009, 14:38

I wonder what the Left Communists did during ww2, maybe they made placards both against the German Nazi Party and Against the Jews, Communists, Trade Unionists and resistance movements for fighting back.

I missed this at the time, I think that left communists were involved in massive strikes against Mussolini fascist regime, attempted to form a party, which had about 50,000 members in Italy.

As the Italian secret police wrote about 'Promento':

The only independent paper. Ideologically the most interesting and prepared. Against any compromise, defends a pure communism, undoubtedly Trotskyist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyist), and thus anti-Stalinist. Declares itself without hesitation an adversary of Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin)'s Russia, while proclaiming itself faithful to Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin)'s Russia. Fights against the war in all aspects: democratic, fascist or Stalinist. Even struggles against 'the partisans', the Committee of National Liberation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_National_Liberation) and the Italian Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party).

You can check Wiki on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism#1939-1945

Devrim

Yehuda Stern

19th January 2009, 16:14

Devrim: We agree on the banning, and yet you are quite naive to believe that the AWL is not a racist organization. It is very Islamophobic (and no, I don't mean that in the SWP sense of criticizing an Islamist political group) and openly Zionist.

Anarchist Tension: There's no holocaust going on today in Israel, that is true. But the Zionist state prepares it every day with its racist rhetoric and it dehumanization of Arabs in its propaganda. Today's pogroms in Acca and Hebron are merely the Kristallnacht of the Zionist state.

It took the Nazis 8 years to start their holocaust. Meanwhile, to refuse to defend Jews against persecution in Germany because they were not being thrown into gas chambers yet would be monstrous and irresponsible.

Leo

19th January 2009, 16:45

and yet you are quite naive to believe that the AWL is not a racist organization. It is very Islamophobic (and no, I don't mean that in the SWP sense of criticizing an Islamist political group) In what sense do you mean it? Are you talking about them saying Arabs are dirty or muslims are stupid or something like that?

While as far as I know racism is very real in Britain towards those who are from Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian muslim backgrounds, I think throwing the word everywhere would take it's meaning away. I would like to see some quotes and all proving the AWL's alleged racism.

Anarchist Tension: There's no holocaust going on today in Israel, that is true. But the Zionist state prepares it every day with its racist rhetoric and it dehumanization of Arabs in its propaganda. Today's pogroms in Acca and Hebron are merely the Kristallnacht of the Zionist state.

It took the Nazis 8 years to start their holocaust.Such policies of the Israeli regime have been going on for fifty years on the other hand and did not lead to an equivalent of the Nazis' holocaust although it lead to quite horrible massacres. Pogroms don't always lead to genocides.

It took the Nazis 8 years to start their holocaust. Meanwhile, to refuse to defend Jews against persecution in Germany because they were not being thrown into gas chambers yet would be monstrous and irresponsible.Surely.

Yet of course it nevertheless would not be acceptable to give support to Zionism either.

19th January 2009, 17:14

In what sense do you mean it? Are you talking about them saying Arabs are dirty or muslims are stupid or something like that?

While as far as I know racism is very real in Britain towards those who are from Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian muslim backgrounds, I think throwing the word everywhere would take it's meaning away. I would like to see some quotes and all proving the AWL's alleged racism.

workersliberty.org/story/2009/01/15/politics-demonstrations-against-israels-offensive-gaza

The disproportion between the damage being inflicted on Israel's people and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians of Gaza makes it seem beside the point that this is a two-sided war, that Hamas is waging war on Israel too. The slaughter in Gaza cancels out awareness of everything else. excuse me?
..
The Guardian and other media have done most of the work in conjuring up the demonstrations; and the "left" once again, excuse me?, especially the SWP, have done much of the organising for the demonstrations.
..
But the politics of the demonstrations have been provided by the Islamic chauvinists. In terms of its politics - support Hamas, support Arab and Islamic war on Israel, conquer and destroy Israel all of them? really? - the big demonstration on 10 January in London was an Arab or Islamic chauvinist, or even a clerical-fascist, demonstration. Their slogans, their politics, their programme, echoed and insisted upon by the kitsch left, have provided the politics of the demonstrations, drowning out everything else.
The clerical fascists have politically hegemonised the demonstrations to an astonishing degree. These have not been peace demonstration, but pro-war, and war-mongering, demonstrations - for Hamas's war, and for a general Arab war on Israel.

Yet of course it nevertheless would not be acceptable to give support to Zionism either.

That article also says
In their political slogans and chants, the dominant forces on the demonstrations have been not only against what Israel is doing in Gaza now, but against Israel as such, against Israel's right to exist. Opposition to the Gaza war, and outrage at it, only provide the immediate justification for the settled politics of seeking the root-and-branch extirpation of Israel and "Zionism".

Why does he quote Zionism? I think he's trying to say it's not so bad.

he current demonstrations have had a six to seven year build-up, during which that "left" has promoted the politics of Islamic clerical-fascism, and even its organisations, the British Muslim Initiative and the Muslim-Brotherhood front, Muslim Association of Britain. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The "left", from outside the mainly-Muslim communities in Britain - it is still very much outside: the evidence is that the SWP has gained very few recruits from Muslim backgrounds from its half-decade of accommodating to Islam and posing as the best "fighters for Muslims" - has done all it can to push the youth of the Muslim communities behind Islamist political and religious reaction. It has courted and promoted the forces of political, social, and religious reaction within those communities. Instead of organising anti-war movements on the basis of secular, democratic, working-class, socialist politics, it has organised an "anti-war" movement on the basis of the politics listed above.
Instead of advocating and building working-class unity on ideas and slogans such as "black and white - Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist - unite and fight", kitsch-leftists have made themselves into communalists, the best "fighters for Muslims". On the political basis of Muslim communalism, no working-class unity could conceivably be built.
Instead of helping the secularising, rebellious youth of the Muslim communities to differentiate from their background, instead of using the anti-war demonstrations to give them a focus broader than their starting point, the kitsch-left has "related" to the communities as such, and to the conservative and reactionary elements within them - including clerical-fascists - and that has helped those right-wingers to control, and the political-Islamist organisations to recruit, the youth, including women.

I love the including women bit at the end.

benhur

19th January 2009, 18:14

Anarchist Tension: There's no holocaust going on today in Israel, that is true. But the Zionist state prepares it every day with its racist rhetoric and it dehumanization of Arabs in its propaganda. Today's pogroms in Acca and Hebron are merely the Kristallnacht of the Zionist state.

This is a bit far fetched, isn't it? Iranian president said Israel must disappear, he also questioned the holocaust, hamas and other reactionaries, including Arafat, have said Jews must be dumped into the sea, and so on and so forth. Does this mean these Muslim nations are trying to dehumanize Jews, and are waiting for an opportunity to commit pogrom against the Jews? Obviously not. I think you're overreacting here.

Killfacer

19th January 2009, 18:22

Why does he quote Zionism? I think he's trying to say it's not so bad.

Want to know what the key word there is? THINK. I don't think you can accuse them of racism because the author quote marked zionism.

19th January 2009, 18:43

Want to know what the key word there is? THINK. I don't think you can accuse them of racism because the author quote marked zionism.

If we're going on his quotemarking of left I think we can accuse him of mocking the meaning of it. Also notice that I didn't say he was racist when he wrote that, I specifically said he meant Zionism isn't so bad by saying that.

How about you put things into the context in which they were meant next time.

Devrim

19th January 2009, 19:54

Devrim: We agree on the banning, and yet you are quite naive to believe that the AWL is not a racist organization. It is very Islamophobic (and no, I don't mean that in the SWP sense of criticizing an Islamist political group) and openly Zionist.

I am very aware of the politics of the AWL. As I said earlier:

I find the pro-Israeli politics of the AWL totally reprehensible.

Whether the AWL is racist isn't even the point here*. What I was responding to was this comment:

...but as socialists we will fight against placards carrying racist and immature messages.

So the SWP member wasn't saying they are a racist organisation. He was saying that the placard was racist. The slogan on the placard was; "No To IDF No To Hamas". Hardly a racist slogan I would say.

Devrim

*Actually I don't think that the AWL is a racist organisation. They just have a tendency to support different sides from the SWP in inter imperialist conflicts. From an internationalist position there is little to chose beteeen the two.

Devrim

apathy maybe

19th January 2009, 20:18

Wow, I am amazed that people are defending the destruction of a placard that said "No to IDF
No to HAMAS"

What's wrong with that? It isn't racist, any one who says it is is fucking crazy! It isn't dishonest as some person said above (it makes no claims of truth). It doesn't equate the two as equals, merely as organisations to be opposed (if I said "No to the USA, no to Israel", would anyone think I equated the two in terms of power? What about "No to the USA, no to the Taliban"?).

I think that the actions of the PSC person were disgraceful, and in the photos he looks like a big bully.

I don't know who organised this rally, I don't know what they said was the reason to get people to come, I don't know why people turned up. I guess, it was an anti-Israeli action in Gaza rally. Someone mentioned that the majority of people opposed the placard being there, did you take a poll? Did anyone?

(Regarding the PSC, for those who aren't British, the Sheffield PLC say

Sheffield Palestine Solidarity Campaign is a group of people living in the Sheffield area who are deeply concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people.

We are committed to supporting the struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determination. We are affiliated to the national Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which is based in London.
How that translates into supporting Hamas I don't know. The national PSC website also doesn't say they support Hamas.)

Yehuda Stern

19th January 2009, 21:17

In what sense do you mean it? Are you talking about them saying Arabs are dirty or muslims are stupid or something like that?

Mantegna proudly refers to himself as a Zionist. I have yet to meet a Zionist who isn't a racist. At any rate, as I stressed already, I am referring to actual racism, not just irresponsible positions on anti-imperialism.

Such policies of the Israeli regime have been going on for fifty years on the other hand and did not lead to an equivalent of the Nazis' holocaust although it lead to quite horrible massacres. Pogroms don't always lead to genocides.

They're actually getting much worse recently. Anti-Arab hate crimes are significantly on the rise, and a lynch atmosphere has been building up for the last couple of years. This is all a direct consequence of the political weakening of the Zionist state.

Yet of course it nevertheless would not be acceptable to give support to Zionism either.

Well, I don't really know what to make of this. Are you saying that Zionism was a national liberation movement, just like the Palestinian resistance is? That's laughable - the Zionists never fought against Nazism or anti-Semitism, not even for a limited amount of time or for some concessions. In fact, all incidents of Jewish uprisings against Nazism - notably the Warsaw Ghetto uprising - took place against the wishes of the Zionist leadership in Ghettos.

This is a bit far fetched, isn't it? Iranian president said Israel must disappear, he also questioned the holocaust, hamas and other reactionaries, including Arafat, have said Jews must be dumped into the sea, and so on and so forth. Does this mean these Muslim nations are trying to dehumanize Jews, and are waiting for an opportunity to commit pogrom against the Jews? Obviously not. I think you're overreacting here.

They all said those things, yes, but those who actually have a power to carry out a massacre - and have done so in the past - are not the Arabs but the Zionists.

Whether the AWL is racist isn't even the point here*. What I was responding to was this comment:

And I was responding to your comment, saying that I agree mostly with what you say but not with you saying that the AWL isn't racist.

Leo

19th January 2009, 23:05

Mantegna proudly refers to himself as a Zionist. I have yet to meet a Zionist who isn't a racist. While certainly pro-Zionist, I am still skeptical about whether AWL is a racist organization.

They're actually getting much worse recently. Anti-Arab hate crimes are significantly on the rise, and a lynch atmosphere has been building up for the last couple of years. This is all a direct consequence of the political weakening of the Zionist state.I see, but still there were Pogrom-like massacres from the beginning to my knowledge. A striking one I remember reading about is the Deir Yassin massacre in 1948 for example.

That's laughable - the Zionists never fought against Nazism or anti-Semitism, not even for a limited amount of time or for some concessions. In fact, all incidents of Jewish uprisings against Nazism - notably the Warsaw Ghetto uprising - took place against the wishes of the Zionist leadership in Ghettos.Zionism, being an ideology had lots of tendencies within it as far as I know and some Zionists propagated Jews in Palestine to join the British Army to fight against Nazism. As for in Europe, including Warsaw uprising, regardless of the behaviors of Zionist leadership, as far as I know a high number of people and if I am not mistaken even some organizations like Jewish Military Union were Zionist organizations, and there were also left-Zionist organizations. All this on the other hand does not make Zionism itself positive.

benhur

20th January 2009, 06:13

They all said those things, yes, but those who actually have a power to carry out a massacre - and have done so in the past - are not the Arabs but the Zionists.

Islamists also have the power to do this, because they're being supported by the imperialist powers. And Islamists have done this in the past, like in Armenia. What zionists are doing is nothing peculiar, they're doing what all men in power do: wipe out the enemies, real or perceived.

Zurdito

21st January 2009, 06:02

Islamists also have the power to do this, because they're being supported by the imperialist powers. And Islamists have done this in the past, like in Armenia. What zionists are doing is nothing peculiar, they're doing what all men in power do: wipe out the enemies, real or perceived.

true but when you design a slogan about a particular event, you are showing your priorities in that moment.

No to Israel, no to Hamas, in response to the massacre in Gaza, is saying that both are equal causes of this massacre, with the Palestinian and Israeli working class caught in the middle.

This is not true.

benhur

21st January 2009, 06:12

true but when you design a slogan about a particular event, you are showing your priorities in that moment.

No to Israel, no to Hamas, in response to the massacre in Gaza, is saying that both are equal causes of this massacre, with the Palestinian and Israeli working class caught in the middle.

This is not true.

I understand what you're saying. All I am saying is, we're wasting too much time and analysis on particulars, and missing the general principle behind the whole crisis. The particulars are zionists, hamas etc. etc. The general point behind all this seems to be conflict between bourgeois factions, wherein workers from both sides are caught in the crossfire.

Even if the particulars, such as hamas, zionists etc. disappear, this general idea will persist in some form or the other, in some other geographic location, between other countries and parties. So would it not be better to address this, rather than waste time on details?

metalero

21st January 2009, 11:21

Devrim, please explain how homemade rocket throwing against helicopters, military might and nuclear arsenal is an inter-imperialist conflict?

Devrim

21st January 2009, 11:25

Metalero, it is a proxy conflict for the local imperialist powers. The conflict is between Iran/Syria and Israel. HAMAS and the Palestinians are used as part of this.

Devrim

Yehuda Stern

25th January 2009, 00:26

Islamists also have the power to do this, because they're being supported by the imperialist powers.

I could laugh at hours at this. What imperialist powers? Are you blind?

And Islamists have done this in the past, like in Armenia.

Ah, so Islamists are supported by the imperialist powers of a century ago. What terrible power they have in their hands, indeed.

What zionists are doing is nothing peculiar, they're doing what all men in power do: wipe out the enemies, real or perceived.

Should I even pay attention to this hollow piece of liberal sentimentalism?

benhur

25th January 2009, 06:35

I could laugh at hours at this. What imperialist powers? Are you blind?

Can you tell me why you think I am wrong? That would be helpful for my learning.

Ah, so Islamists are supported by the imperialist powers of a century ago. What terrible power they have in their hands, indeed.

No, they're also being supported now. It was imperialist Israel that created hamas, imperialist US that created Al Qaeda. Islamists are simply hired gun of the imperialists to fight 'common enemies.'

Should I even pay attention to this hollow piece of liberal sentimentalism?

Are you denying that power corrupts? Are you denying that all humans have the same propensity to do evil? Or, do you have some weird notion that certain ethnic groups are intrinsically more evil than the rest? That, my comrade, would be racist of you.

Jet

25th January 2009, 09:38

Islamists also have the power to do this, because they're being supported by the imperialist powers. And Islamists have done this in the past, like in Armenia. What zionists are doing is nothing peculiar, they're doing what all men in power do: wipe out the enemies, real or perceived.

This is very bad example but I'll take it and asking you this question

You said the Armenians suffered! they were part and sided with imperialists you know that right?

All what they want is taking lands from Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran with their famous word the so called "genocide".

communard resolution

25th January 2009, 13:34

This is very bad example but I'll take it and asking you this question

You said the Armenians suffered! they were part and sided with imperialists you know that right?

All what they want is taking lands from Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran with their famous word the so called "genocide".

You, my friend, are a Turkish fascist -or at least you sympathise with their views- and should be banned from here on the spot. Moderator action please.

Yehuda Stern

25th January 2009, 14:09

Can you tell me why you think I am wrong? That would be helpful for my learning.

First, you will have to dig your head out of the middle class left cliche book.

No, they're also being supported now. It was imperialist Israel that created hamas, imperialist US that created Al Qaeda. Islamists are simply hired gun of the imperialists to fight 'common enemies.'

That is irrelevant. Right now, Hamas and Hizb Allah are supported by no imperialist power (unless you're empty-headed enough to consider Iran or Syria to be imperialist states).

Are you denying that power corrupts? Are you denying that all humans have the same propensity to do evil? Or, do you have some weird notion that certain ethnic groups are intrinsically more evil than the rest? That, my comrade, would be racist of you.

This passage can certainly win the title of Most Stupid Thing Written In RevLeft That Couldn't Get Its Poster Banned (unlike what the Turkish fascist Jet wrote, which obviously doesn't fit in with the second half of the title).

Leo

25th January 2009, 14:23

You said the Armenians suffered! One and a half million Armenians were massacred by the Turkish state along with millions of other minorities including Greeks, Assyrians, Kurds and so forth.

they were part and sided with imperialists you know that right?Armenian bourgeoisie sided with the imperialists, so did the Turkish bourgeoisie. It was, on the other hand, mostly the Armenian workers and toilers who were slaughtered by the Turkish ruling class.

All what they want is taking lands from Turkey, Azerbaijan and IranAll these are merely fantasies of delusional Turkish and Azeri nationalists, Armenia has no real strength to take lands from any of the other imperialist states in the region and does not expect to do so either - realistically, being only a small power, their expectations are much lower, although surely Armenian nationalists would be dreaming of a Greater Armenia, just like the Turkish nationalists masturbating about the lands possessed previously about the Ottoman Empire an taking Mosul and Qirkuk.

with their famous word the so called "genocide".It was a genocide.

Yehuda Stern

25th January 2009, 16:39

Armenian bourgeoisie sided with the imperialists, so did the Turkish bourgeoisie. It was, on the other hand, the Armenian workers and toilers who were slaughtered by the Turkish ruling class.

Was there really any class based selection? In the Jewish holocaust, Jews of all classes were murdered.

Leo

25th January 2009, 17:40

No that was a typo, my bad, I forgot to put a "mostly" before "Armenian workers and toilers".

As in all genocides though the rich had more chance to escape than the poor.

benhur

25th January 2009, 18:32

First, you will have to dig your head out of the middle class left cliche book.

I suggest you do the same.

That is irrelevant. Right now, Hamas and Hizb Allah are supported by no imperialist power (unless you're empty-headed enough to consider Iran or Syria to be imperialist states)

So? My point is, the imperialists haven't always fought the Islamists, whenever they saw it necessary, they gave support to them to fight common enemies.

This passage can certainly win the title of Most Stupid Thing Written In RevLeft That Couldn't Get Its Poster Banned (unlike what the Turkish fascist Jet wrote, which obviously doesn't fit in with the second half of the title).

Don't dodge.:D

Yehuda Stern

25th January 2009, 20:27

Leo

25th January 2009, 20:56

This is completely off topic Yehuda, Benhur's avatar is not anyones' business. I do not think people who consider themselves to have much to do with the old man's mostly positive legacy (regardless of all his political opinions which I consider to be opportunist, dogmatic and sectarian) yet I do not scream whenever I see you people jumping to open defence of anti-working class bourgeois organizations like Hamas.

Pogue

25th January 2009, 21:06

I'm not dodging. I'm a revolutionary Marxist, not some middle class bleeding heart liberal who thinks that any sort of rule will automatically turn into a corrupt dictatorship. If you think so, then what is the picture of Trotsky doing in your avatar? Can you explain that?

If you're a Marxist why do you go on about the middle class so much?

His analysis is not liberal. Its realistic. You just don't like it.

Yehuda Stern

25th January 2009, 21:32

Leo:
1. Benhur's avatar is just a symptom. If one believes that all state power is inherently evil, what point is there to pose as a Marxist?
2. I never defended Hamas, least of all openly. To be honest, though, you do scream whenever you think I do that.

HLVS:
You've asked me this question countless times. I've answered it before: by middle class I mean a certain strata of the petty-bourgeoisie. As for benhur's analysis being 'realistic,' this is something I'd expect from an anarchist such as yourself. I am only bothered by the fact that he apparently insists on posing as a Marxist.

alhop10

25th January 2009, 21:33

"Weyman Bennett's comments that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever” were absolutely repugnant"

I'm pretty sure that it wasn't Weyman Bennet that said that (or something along those lines) but another leading black SWP member. Its a stupid thing to say whoever said it but its kinda funny that whoever heard it just assumed it was Bennet because he was black.

Devrim

25th January 2009, 21:37

redarmyfaction38

25th January 2009, 21:48

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16835

in the socialist worker maybe, but not in hamas.and not in the swp that's the bit the swp miss.
imo, and this is just my opinion, allying yourselves with a political party that is largely based in a religious ideology is not the way forward, what you do is accept the bullshit forced upon us by the capitalists and religious sectarians and totally undermine the independant working class stance that is needed.
the swp isn't doing very well lately, maybe it's because of all the blind alleys they keep leading their members up.
leading being the operative word.
no personal offence intended.

Pogue

25th January 2009, 21:56

Leo

25th January 2009, 22:05

1. Benhur's avatar is just a symptom. If one believes that all state power is inherently evil, what point is there to pose as a Marxist?

Be that as it may, I still don't see how your question is in anyway relevant to the discussion on the "resistance" and so forth.

2. I never defended Hamas, least of all openly. To be honest, though, you do scream whenever you think I do that.

Don't you give them what you call "military support"?

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th January 2009, 22:22

Devrim:

I am pretty sure that it was him. I have heard it from various sources, and apparently video exists.

True to type, you believe any old smear against the SWP based on hear-say or no evidence at all.

alhop10

25th January 2009, 22:43

The question is simple really, your answer to which can determine whether or not you should show support for Hamas. Do you think think that the palestinian poeple would be better off under a palestinian state controlled by hamas than they are now? If yes you can support Hamas if no then you can say that Israel should be allowed to do whatever it likes with no resistance.

benhur

26th January 2009, 06:47

There's plenty of historical evidence to suggest that power corrupts, and no religion, ethnic group, nation has been immune to it. When the Islamists had power (ottaman empire), they abused it thoroughly. British Empire did the same, and now having lost that power, they're quiet. The same goes for Spain, France, Germany, and all empires.

Whenever a certain nation or ethnic group acquires power, they've exploited smaller and weaker nations. Nazis abused their power to hurt the Jews. As a poor, powerless country, China never abused anyone, in fact, they were abused by Japanese. Now china as a big power is doing to Tibet, what other imperialists did to china not long ago.

Countless such instances can be given from ALL nations, ALL religions, ALL races, but the point is clear. Power corrupts, and especially when that power is consolidated in the form of an Almighty State in a few hands, we can very well see where that can lead.

From all this, it's to be concluded that zionists and Islamists are going to behave no differently, if they have the same amount of power. Incidentally, the latter doesn't, which is why their atrocities don't match the zionist ones, it's not because they're any better than zionists. They just don;t have the means and the material to go all the way, and commit the same atrocities as the zionists. Trying to see distinctions between these two power-hungry, violent, militant ideologies is like trying to see differences between two capitalists.

benhur

26th January 2009, 06:49

Devrim:

True to type, you believe any old smear against the SWP based on hear-say or no evidence at all.

Do you have evidence to prove otherwise?

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th January 2009, 14:03

BenHur:

Do you have evidence to prove otherwise?

Why should we have to prove the negative of any old lie and slur that Devrim gullibly swallows?

I have no proof that Barak Obama is not a Martian either.

Devrim is sure to believe he is, though.

Devrim

26th January 2009, 14:17

It is a pretty poor attempt at a smear really.

Here is an extract from a newspaper reporting the incident:

A relatively large number of people on the demonstration carried Hamas or other Islamist placards and banners. There was some shouting of Allahu akbar, but from what I can gather there were no anti-semitic slogans shouted. Though Weyman Bennett of the SWP’s central committee was heard demanding that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever”

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/752/marchingforgaza.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/752/marchingforgaza.html)

I have heard confirmation of this from people who I personally trust, and there are many witnesses. Rosa's response is to say:

Why should we have to prove the negative of any old lie and slur that Devrim gullibly swallows?

I think this thread shows the honest of the SWP members on this board:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/jew-free-holocaust-t98069/index.html

First they suggest that a document didn't exist. Then it was proven that it did. Then they suggest that it was a forgery produced by a rival group to discredit them. Then it was proven that it wasn't.

People can of course choose who to believe.

Devrim

Hit The North

26th January 2009, 14:29

First they suggest that a document didn't exist. Then it was proven that it did. Then they suggest that it was a forgery produced by a rival group to discredit them. Then it was proven that it wasn't. There's nothing dishonest in the SWP comrades responses in that thread. None of us knew for certain whether the document existed or its origin. Rather than just accepting your word for it, we posed a number of alternatives. Yes, you proved that it existed and was not a forgery produced by the AWL and this was accepted. What more do you want? Oh yes, our complete capitulation to your holy writ. Well, you know what you can do with that.

Devrim

26th January 2009, 14:51

There's nothing dishonest in the SWP comrades responses in that thread. None of us knew for certain whether the document existed or its origin. Rather than just accepting your word for it, we posed a number of alternatives. Yes, you proved that it existed and was not a forgery produced by the AWL and this was accepted. What more do you want? Oh yes, our complete capitulation to your holy writ. Well, you know what you can do with that.

So without knowing you accused other people of being liars, and suggested that the AWL had fabricated the leaflet to discredit you. You were perfectly prepared to slander and smear other people without even knowing the facts.

What more do I want? I would prefer not to be insulted and smeared when telling the truth as is happening again from an SWP supporter here.

I think that the behaviour of SWP members was absolutely dishonest on that thread. Maybe you don't agree. Others can make up their own minds.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th January 2009, 21:26

Devrim:

I have heard confirmation of this from people who I personally trust, and there are many witnesses. Rosa's response is to say:

So, all you have is hearsay. I know Weyman, and I know this is something he would not say.

So, if you have hard evidence, let's see it; otherwise belt up.

Quoting the Weekly Liar isn't proof, either, since they regularly post baseless smears about the SWP, all of which you believe, but only because you have a deeply sectarian mind.

And the 'white socialists' comment was made by Lindsey German in a non-official capacity, and it was not made in an SWP publication. This cannot therefore be lain at the door of the SWP.

Nice try to smear the SWP again, Devrim -- only it isn't.

benhur

26th January 2009, 21:31

Devrim:

So, all you have is hearsay. I know Weyman, and I know this is something he would not say.

So, if you have hard evidence, let's see it; otherwise belt up.
.

Even if what you say is true, the problem isn't restricted to this isolated case. Many times, SWP has been caught lying, rationalizing, and dodging. BTB has admitted as much. And going by SWP's poor track record (in honesty and integrity, as much as in other matters), it's so hard to defend them.

Hit The North

26th January 2009, 21:43

Many times, SWP has been caught lying, rationalizing, and dodging. BTB has admitted as much.

I've admitted nothing of the kind. You must have read it in the Weekly Worker!

BobKKKindle$

26th January 2009, 21:53

Do you have evidence to prove otherwise? You're essentially asking us to prove that someone did not say something, and anyone with a basic grasp of logic or common sense can see why this is ridiculous. You sound like the kind of person who, upon being told that there is no evidence to show that God exists, would reply that there is no evidence to show that he doesn't, and so religion is logically valid. It's also ironic that you accuse the SWP of lacking integrity given that Devrim has tried to frame one of our leading members as a racist despite the fact that the only evidence he can put forward to support his allegations is an article in the Weekly Worker, and the assurances of his anonymous mates. I could just as easily claim that the ICC had been handing out leaflets supporting ethnic cleansing at a demonstration and cite my own mates as a source and I would have exactly the same degree of credibility as Devrim, but because he is trying to smear a revolutionary party like the SWP, and not a sectarian clique like the ICC, his allegations are accepted by gullible fools such as yourself.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th January 2009, 22:12

Benhur:

Even if what you say is true, the problem isn't restricted to this isolated case. Many times, SWP has been caught lying, rationalizing, and dodging. BTB has admitted as much. And going by SWP's poor track record (in honesty and integrity, as much as in other matters), it's so hard to defend them.

Long on accusation -- short on proof.

In other words -- a typical sectarian.

Devrim

26th January 2009, 22:18

Quoting the Weekly Liar isn't proof, either, since they regularly post baseless smears about the SWP, all of which you believe, but only because you have a deeply sectarian mind.

Rosa, please state one fact* that I claimed about the SWP that turned out to be wrong.

I claimed that an SWP councillor had defected to the Tories. I was called a liar. It turned out I was right.

I claimed that an SWP (Ireland) member had called the cops on protesting workers. SWP members told people not to believe it. He had.

I claimed that the SWP had made a leaflet listing holocaust deaths without including Jews. We were told it didn't exist. It did.

Then we were told that it could have been 'forged' by the AWL. IT hadn't.

Devrim has tried to frame one of our leading members as a racist despite the fact that the only evidence he can put forward to support his allegations is an article in the Weekly Worker, and the assurances of his anonymous mates.

No, I haven't tried to 'frame anybody as a racist'. I reported comments. Are you denying that he said these things? Not comments like Rosa's:

So, all you have is hearsay. I know Weyman, and I know this is something he would not say.

If you know him, speak to him, and get a denial. I really would like to see a categorical denial that he said this. We haven't seen one yet. All we have seen are smears.

I could just as easily claim that the ICC had been handing out leaflets supporting ethnic cleansing at a demonstration and cite my own mates as a source and I would have exactly the same degree of credibility as Devrim

Well, I would suggest that you have lost that credibility through your repetitive dishonesty. However, other readers can decide.

Devrim

*A fact here does not refer to a matter of opinion such as myself believing that the SWP will recruit people without political agreement.

skki

26th January 2009, 22:20

So much of the blame for this conflict lies with Hamas. They conducted a series of attacks against Israeli civilians, knowing exactly what would happen in return. They are using the lives of Palestinians to garner sympathy for their cause.

They run a theocracy too.

Leo

26th January 2009, 22:21

You're essentially asking us to prove that someone did not say something, and anyone with a basic grasp of logic or common sense can see why this is ridiculous. You sound like the kind of person who, upon being told that there is no evidence to show that God exists, would reply that there is no evidence to show that he doesn't, and so religion is logically valid.What an empty argument. Devrim basically quoted Weekly Worker saying this, did not come up with it himself. The possible evidence on this can only be a rejection or a confirmation of it, you can't say "prove it, prove it" - it is your party which we are talking about, you can either say it did happen or say it did not happen.

Of course the problem you fellas are having leading you to scream "LIES!" "SLANDERS!" etc. has to do with the SWP not having any decent party structure to begin with for people to ask and find out about these things.

but because he is trying to smear a revolutionary party like the SWP, The SWP is only a shameless Haniyeh-Meshaal r-r-revolutionary party who wants little brown people to die fighting "imperialism" to be fair.

Devrim

26th January 2009, 22:21

And the 'white socialists' comment was made by Lindsey German in a non-official capacity, and it was not made in an SWP publication. This cannot therefore be lain at the door of the SWP.

Actually it is from 'SWP Pre-Conference Internal Bulletin #4', which I would assume is an SWP publication. The name sort of gives it away.

However, it is not the point. Are you saying that these sort of dodgy remarks are OK in a 'non-official capacity'?

Devrim

BobKKKindle$

26th January 2009, 22:24

Are you denying that he said these things?Do you deny that members of the ICC support the extermination of all people with the name "Bob"? I mean, sure, you might not have heard of it, but my mates told me about it, and I trust them, so it must be true, and if you deny it, you are just being dishonest!

Honestly, you're asking something ridiculous - I'm not in the business of stalking members of the CC on demonstrations, so logically I can't know for sure that the individual in question didn't make the remark, in the same way that you don't know whether what I said above about the ICC is not true, but given that the SWP is not a racist organization, and that your only source is an article from the Weekly Worker as well as comments made by some anonymous mates of yours, and given that Rosa, a long-standing support of our party, knows the comrade personally, your allegation has a complete lack of credibility.

you can either say it did happen or say it did not happen.

I know things may be different in an irrelevant clique like the ICC, but the SWP does not focus its time and resources on responding to comments in Weekly Worker. We do things in real life, like building for campaigns, holding meetings - all those things which you see as pointless and bourgeois.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th January 2009, 22:26

Devrim:

Rosa, please state one fact* that I claimed about the SWP that turned out to be wrong.

You ask this of me regularly, and when I post the details, you just ignore them, only to ask the same question months later.

The point is that you believe lies and smears about the SWP before the evidence turns up. In this case, you believe it on hearsay alone, and based on a notoriously unreliable source: The Weekly Liar.

However, it is not the point. Are you saying that these sort of dodgy remarks are OK in a 'non-official capacity'?

No I'm not; Lindsey should have been severely censured for that remark.

But, it is not an official SWP comment

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th January 2009, 22:29

Leo:

The SWP is only a shameless Haniyeh-Meshaal r-r-revolutionary party who wants little brown people to die fighting "imperialism" to be fair.

That statement, Leo, is beneath you. I am surprised someone as sophisticated as you could come out with it.

Leo

26th January 2009, 22:30

Do you deny that members of the ICC support the extermination of all people with the name "Bob"?Yes, this is something very easy to dismiss, we know the positions of our current, we know what the comrades in our current say. I can say confidently that I know that members of the ICC do not support the extermination of all people with the name "Bob", and that there are probably people called "Bob" among ICC militants and sympathizers. The ICC is a centralized organization after all.

Can you say the same thing about Weyman Bennett's comments now, convinced that it will turn out that you are right rather than another apology coming up?

Honestly, you're asking something ridiculous - I'm not in the business of stalking members of the CC on demonstrations, so logically I can't know for sure that the individual in question didn't make the remarkHad there been internal life in your organization you would have simply asked and got the answer... Or does the SWP CC not know what it's members do and do not say publicly either?

That statement, Leo, is beneath you. I am surprised someone as sophisticated as you could come out with it.

I do find the support given to Hamas to be quite disturbing to be honest.

Hit The North

26th January 2009, 22:37

The SWP is only a shameless Haniyeh-Meshaal r-r-revolutionary party who wants little brown people to die fighting "imperialism" to be fair.

If that's you being fair I'd hate to see you in slanderous gobshite mode.

BobKKKindle$

26th January 2009, 22:40

Yes, this is something very easy to dismiss, we know the positions of our current, we know what the comrades in our current sayAre you saying that your current listens to every single thing its members say, even in the middle of a turbulent demonstration in which people are shouting and moving about, and that all of these comments are then passed on to every other member of your organization? What about comments made to non-members in a pub? What about a member who likes to talk to herself? Please, don't be silly. We both know that the ICC does not demand what I suggested above, but the point here is that, if I accused one of your members of being prejudiced, and cited my mates as evidence, you would have no way of disproving me, and so it is unfair and immature of you to call on me to categorically reject the allegations directed against the comrade under discussion. Given other forms of evidence, however - the tendency of the Weekly Worker to lie, your lack of evidence other than the Weekly Worker, Rosa's assurances - I find it extremely unlikely that Bennett made an anti-semitic comment.

I also know the positions of my organization, and the SWP is opposed to all forms of racism and prejudice, as we aim for working-class unity throughout the world.

Had there been any internal life in your organization you would have simply asked and got the answerI could phone up the national office right now if I wanted to...but I'm not going to, because the SWP doesn't busy itself with sectarian jabs, and I would probably be laughed at. We do things which actually have an impact - funnily enough, I've never encountered the ICC at a single mass meeting, and your presence on demonstrations has been limited to one person handing out photocopied leaflets.

Leo

26th January 2009, 23:29

If that's you being fair I'd hate to see you in slanderous gobshite mode.

Do you people not support Hamas? Bobkindles has the nerve to quote Meshaal for crying out loud what on earth is slanderous in what I am saying?

What about comments made to non-members in a pub? What about a member who likes to talk to herself? Please, don't be silly. We both know that the ICC does not demand what I suggested above, but the point here is that

Surely not, but we know the political positions well enough to be confident of it, we'd investigate if some such thing was claimed and deal with it if it turned out to be true.

if I accused one of your members of being prejudiced, and cited my mates as evidence, you would have no way of disproving me

Well, I'd ask about it to the person and other comrades who the person. If it turned out to be false, you'd be disproved.

Given other forms of evidence, however - the tendency of the Weekly Worker to lie

Does the Weekly Worker lie a lot? Can you evidence to their past lies? (I am asking because I do not know about this a lot.)

Rosa's assurances

But she isn't an SWP member?

I could phone up the national office right now if I wanted to...but I'm not going to, because the SWP doesn't busy itself with sectarian jabs, and I would probably be laughed at.

Such allegations are not just "sectarian jabs", they are quite serious and ignoring them or not really commenting on them is only going to make them stronger in everyones minds, except the SWP members and close supporters that is.

We do things which actually have an impact

Oh good, congratulations you have managed to recruit a few thousand, half of whom are probably gonna leave next month to be replaced by another group of new recruits. Should we be expecting the revolution from your enormous organization soon then?

I've never encountered the ICC at a single mass meeting

Mass meeting of whom? British comrades have participated in workers mass meetings in the past as well as pickets, workshop meetings etc. and continue to do so nowadays whenever possible.

and your presence on demonstrations has been limited to one person handing out photocopied leaflets.

Meh, depends on where you live :P

Hit The North

27th January 2009, 00:18

Do you people not support Hamas? Bobkindles has the nerve to quote Meshaal for crying out loud what on earth is slanderous in what I am saying? Okay, I misinterpreted you. If you weren't implying that the SWP see the Palestinians as "little brown people" it must be your patronising view of them. Sorry for the mistake.

Leo

27th January 2009, 00:53

Okay, I misinterpreted you. If you weren't implying that the SWP see the Palestinians as "little brown people" it must be your patronising view of them.Well that is the mentality I see behind it to an extent whether it is conscious or unconscious, but this is a political criticism, not an "accusation". It is not just about the SWP as well but applies to all who support Hamas and say that Palestinian workers should fight and die for their interests.

Hit The North

27th January 2009, 01:46

Well, the SWP doesn't refer to the suffering and courageous people of Gaza as "little brown people", you do. Neither do we call upon Palestinian workers to fight, let alone die, for the interests of Hamas. But we don't condemn them either.

EnragÃ©

27th January 2009, 02:13

this is all a big fuss about a relatively small incident. That said, removing that placard is a load of fucking crap, and if I were that SWP organiser i wouldnt have just looked on as it happened but defended the guy/gal's right to hold that placard.

Just goes to show (again!), that if I lived in the UK, no way in hell would i be a member of the IST (i'd prolly join the AF, tho i disagree with them on national liberation). This shit reminds me of when during the Lebanon war in 2006 the SWP had placards reading "We are all Hezbollah", fuck that!

BIG BROTHER

27th January 2009, 02:14

Seriously,they should try to keep protests peaceful, I mean i realize why someone would take that sign away but they should just be smart about the stuff that they do.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th January 2009, 02:49

Leo:

I do find the support given to Hamas to be quite disturbing to be honest.

How does that justify the things you said? Which, as I said, were beneath you.

Zurdito

27th January 2009, 04:39

I understand what you're saying. All I am saying is, we're wasting too much time and analysis on particulars, and missing the general principle behind the whole crisis. The particulars are zionists, hamas etc. etc. The general point behind all this seems to be conflict between bourgeois factions, wherein workers from both sides are caught in the crossfire.

I don't think this is a correct analysis of the general idea, at least not from the point of view of the man in your avatar who correctly stated that we must not equate the nationalism of the oppressor with the nationalism of the oppressed.

I would say that the "general principle" is that an oppressed nation living either under apartheid has just suffered 22 days of massacre culminating in an occupation of territory ruled by a freely elected government. It is fighting a cross class struggle against the oppressor state for basic democratic and national rights.

I don't know what your opinion is but Trotsky's opinion was that the bourgeois revolutions which created sovereign (bourgeois) nation-states with democratic rights were progressive at the time, and that in countries where, due to oppression by imperialism, the tasks of these revolutions could not be carried out by the bourgeosie, then revolutionaries should make the popular demands for these rights their own, as part of the wider class struggle and taking the leadership of the struggle for these demands away from the bourgeoisie.

So to not see the progressive content in the Palestinian struggle against zionism I think means that you do not see the general picture.

Even if the particulars, such as hamas, zionists etc. disappear, this general idea will persist in some form or the other, in some other geographic location, between other countries and parties. So would it not be better to address this, rather than waste time on details?

Marxists don't think details are a waste of time. How do you expect to address this (the above) if you refuse to "waste time" on the details of any actual real-life struggle? Will emancipation of workers and the oppressed come just from a generalised "maximum programme" or from the actual application of communist principles in concrete struggles which then inspire and teach others?

DancingLarry

27th January 2009, 05:40

I support the no-state solution.

Devrim

27th January 2009, 10:20

I think that this is very typical of the 'arguments' that the SWP members and supporters make when confronted with any criticism. Despite the almost comic semi-anarchist use of official capacity Rosa claims that the remarks about 'white socialists' were not made in an offical capacity
And the 'white socialists' comment was made by Lindsey German in a non-official capacity, and it was not made in an SWP publication. This cannot therefore be lain at the door of the SWP.

When the SWP publication it was published in is named. Sge immediatly forgets about this point and then moves on. Of course, there is no admittance that she was wrong or even an apology for any of the insults that she has thrown at me, but then again I didn't expect that.

The question is here whether she was talking from ignorance or deliberately lying. I don't see that there is really another option. Either she didn't know what she was talking about and is just defending the SWP without knowing the facts of the case or she was deliberately lying assuming that we didn't know that it was from an internal publication.

Neither would fill you with confidence in her explanations though.

You ask this of me regularly, and when I post the details, you just ignore them, only to ask the same question months later.

I think but I am not certain that I asked it and got a reply once. The reply wasn't about a fact. It was as I remember, about a point of opinion.

The point is that you believe lies and smears about the SWP before the evidence turns up.

Which in all cases I have discussed it has, hasn't it? Would you prefer it if I waited before believing anything about the SWP. Actually, in all cases I have checked different sources made an assesment, and actually turned out to be right.

In this case, you believe it on hearsay alone, and based on a notoriously unreliable source: The Weekly Liar.

Well no, I believe it because I read it in a newspaper article, and I spoke to people who I have know for over twenty years who also heard it. So, yeah I am convinced.

With the allegation that the 'Weekly Worker' is the 'Weekly Liar', there has not been any evidence presented that they repeatedly tell lies. The SWP (and other leftist groups) dislike them because they criticise them. However, the best example of a lie that Bob Kindles could find to use as evidence was that they predicted a split in the SWP and it didn't happen. Just to clarify, mistake predictions and untruths are not lies. A lie is a deliberately told untruth.

Bob's method of examaning the evidence is farcial:

Given other forms of evidence, however - the tendency of the Weekly Worker to lie, your lack of evidence other than the Weekly Worker, Rosa's assurances - I find it extremely unlikely that Bennett made an anti-semitic comment.

the tendency of the Weekly Worker to lie

Something that you have claimed, but we have seen no evidence for.

your lack of evidence other than the Weekly Worker

Actually, we have heard confirmation of it. However, I accept that it is not very hard evidence.

Rosa's assurances

This is the most farcial one. My friends are not acceptable as evidence when they are witnesses, but Bob's friend is when her argument was "I know him, he wouldn't say that".

Bear in mind that Bob's friend is somebody who has already made statements that turned out to be untrue in this thread, see above.

I think that the case has been presented quite clearly now, and has probably dragged on much too long. People can as ever decide whose version they prefer to believe.

Devrim

Leo

27th January 2009, 12:59

Well, the SWP doesn't refer to the suffering and courageous people of Gaza as "little brown people", you do.

It is a reference to what I see as the mentality of Hamas supporters.

Neither do we call upon Palestinian workers to fight, let alone die, for the interests of Hamas. But we don't condemn them either.

You don't condemn Hamas with it's leader hiding and sending people to die for them. You even glorify and honor them in your small way, quote them in your signatures...

How does that justify the things you said? Which, as I said, were beneath you.

I was a bit angry. I didn't swear or flame or anything though.

Hit The North

27th January 2009, 13:15

It is a reference to what I see as the mentality of Hamas supporters.

As I said, slander.

You don't condemn Hamas with it's leader hiding and sending people to die for them. You even glorify and honor them in your small way, quote them in your signatures...

Given that Israel is pursuing a deliberate policy of assassinating the Hamas leadership, I think condemning them for avoiding such an end is a bit... churlish?

Leo

27th January 2009, 13:51

As I said, slander.You can't say that a political criticism is slander, it is a political criticism. Yes I find your mentality to be deeply chauvinistic, whether you are conscious of it or not.

Given that Israel is pursuing a deliberate policy of assassinating the Hamas leadershipOh poor them really :rolleyes:

They are quite safe, don't worry.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th January 2009, 14:21

Devrim, in full sectarian flow:

When the SWP publication it was published in is named. Sge immediatly forgets about this point and then moves on. Of course, there is no admittance that she was wrong or even an apology for any of the insults that she has thrown at me, but then again I didn't expect that.

The question is here whether she was talking from ignorance or deliberately lying. I don't see that there is really another option. Either she didn't know what she was talking about and is just defending the SWP without knowing the facts of the case or she was deliberately lying assuming that we didn't know that it was from an internal publication.

Neither would fill you with confidence in her explanations though.

Who is "Sge"?

Are you addressing me, or your fans? if me, then why all the third-person pronouns? If your fans (all two of them), then why not address me as I address you? What kind of coward are you?

Now, it might be that Lindsey wrote this in an SWP publication, but it does not represent an oficuial SWP point of view, since (as it says, idiot) it is a discussion document.

On the same basis, a fool such as you would, I suspect, think that everything published here is Malte's opinion too. :lol:

I think but I am not certain that I asked it and got a reply once. The reply wasn't about a fact. It was as I remember, about a point of opinion.

In fact, it was about your propensity to bad-mouth the SWP at every turn, based on hear-say alone, as you have done yet again here.

Well no, I believe it because I read it in a newspaper article, and I spoke to people who I have know for over twenty years who also heard it. So, yeah I am convinced.

In other words, hear-say.

As BobK has argued, we could get our mates to swear you ultra-lefts were Nazis in disguise, and that we heard you lot sloganising to that end on a demonstration somewhere, and spread slanders to that effect across the internet as a result. And if we were to do that, if we were to copy your lying tactics, you'd be the first to complain.

And yet, you are quite happy to do the same to the SWP. That says all we need to know about you and your highly suspect temperament.

With the allegation that the 'Weekly Worker' is the 'Weekly Liar', there has not been any evidence presented that they repeatedly tell lies. The SWP (and other leftist groups) dislike them because they criticise them. However, the best example of a lie that Bob Kindles could find to use as evidence was that they predicted a split in the SWP and it didn't happen. Just to clarify, mistake predictions and untruths are not lies. A lie is a deliberately told untruth.

In fact, they have been caught out regularly spreading falsehoods about the SWP. Odd that you should believe a 'Leninist' paper though isn't it, just because you prefer its lies to the opposite.

So. the bottom line is that all you have is the word of your mates (no surprise there, then), and the allegations of a 'Leninist' paper well-known to be the in-house journal of lefty fabulists.

You deserve each other.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th January 2009, 14:24

Leo, looks like we will have to revise our opinion of you if you persist in making such comments about what you imagine is in the minds of SWP-ers.

We too could spread slanders like this based on what we could claim is our idea of what your thought process are. Fortunately, we don't want to sink to your level.

Leo

27th January 2009, 14:41

Leo, looks like we will have to revise our opinion of you if you persist in making such comments about what you imagine is in the minds of SWP-ers.

I am saying that is how it comes across to me, I am not saying the SWP-ers have hidden motives or anything - certainly I am unaware of the mental process but again this is how it comes across to me.

Hit The North

27th January 2009, 16:16

Given that Israel is pursuing a deliberate policy of assassinating the Hamas leadership, I think condemning them for avoiding such an end is a bit... churlish?

Oh poor them really :rolleyes:

They are quite safe, don't worry.

Really? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/23/israel8

And the policy of political assassination which usually involves missile strikes on public buildings (hospitals, schools, etc.) which Israel embarked upon in 2004 was reiterated in 2006 and, again, in the build up to last weeks invasion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/18/israelandthepalestinians.matthewweaver

The first article also adds:

Around 200,000 Gaza residents yesterday poured onto the streets to follow Yassin's coffin in a funeral procession. Mourners at the funeral heard Hamas leaders call for a broadening of the conflict with Israel.
I would assume that a large proportion of those 200,000 mourners were workers - one's you presumably write off because of their support for an organisation you don't approve of.

Meanwhile, as the second article points out and as last week's terrible events in Gaza illustrate, it is these same workers who suffer as Israel uses indiscriminate air strikes to assassinate the leadership of its opponents.

The fact that your abstentionist politics lead you to the smug observation that "they are quite safe, don't worry", as if there's some kind of joke here, is shameful.

Leo

27th January 2009, 17:02

Really? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/23/israel8 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/23/israel8)

Yeah really - certainly the Israeli government isn't gonna say that they indeed are targeting civilians.

And the policy of political assassination which usually involves missile strikes on public buildings (hospitals, schools, etc.)

Israel might claim that they are hitting hospitals, schools etc. because they want to assassinate Hamas leaders, but both they and Hamas leaders are quite certain that Hamas leaders are not hiding in hospitals or schools at the moment.

I would assume that a large proportion of those 200,000 mourners were workers - one's you presumably write off because of their support for an organisation you don't approve of.

Hamas clearly enjoys mass support. So does the IDF and the hawks in Israel. So does the American Democrat and Republican Parties. So did the Nazi Party. I can go on. Bourgeois nationalist organizations, especially ones supported by other states can manage to get mass support.

Meanwhile, as the second article points out and as last week's terrible events in Gaza illustrate, it is these same workers who suffer as Israel uses indiscriminate air strikes to assassinate the leadership of its opponents.

Yes certainly, it is not the leadership who suffers, it is the leadership who hides behind the human shield it pushes forward while ordering the sending of a few rockets every once in a while.

The fact that your abstentionist politics lead you to the smug observation that "they are quite safe, don't worry"

People like Haniyeh and Meshaal are quite safe right now, yes. Bombs aren't falling on their hiding places.

Yes, different factions of the bourgeoisie occasionally try to assasinate people from opposing factions, this is so for both Palestinian and Israeli bourgeois politicians. They are regardless quite safe compared to the working population who keeps dying.

What is shameful is pitying people like Ahmed Yassin while masses of Palestinian workers are being massacred.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th January 2009, 17:37

Leo:

I am saying that is how it comes across to me, I am not saying the SWP-ers have hidden motives or anything - certainly I am unaware of the mental process but again this is how it comes across to me.

But, in that case, you are drawing a conclusion that is not only unbecoming of you, is it wildly inaccurate. For example, the SWP has given unconditional (but not uncrtitical) support to other such groups that can in no way be described as 'brown'. The Provisional IRA, for example.

Now, I trust you will desist from making such slurs, which are unbefitting of an Admin.

Edelweiss

27th January 2009, 17:37

The Palestinian Solidarity campaign and the SWP have shown in no uncertain terms what an SWP and Hamas society would look like.

Political dissidents not allowed.

The reality of a quasi-state led by Hamas is already reality in the Gaza strip. They are the new ruling class there. No surprise, that Hamas isn't tolerating any opposition, no matter if it's Fataj or someone else. The fail miserable when it's about turning from a resistance troop to an organisation actually making government.

The Hamas police force seems to be completely out of control, and expressive police violence by them against protesters have become routine. Striking workers are getting beaten up, just like those Muslims who are in protest of the politicalized prayer services of the Hamas are praying outside the Mosque (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0XHIz3pLH0&feature=related).

Civil resistance against the Hamas dictatorship is growing every day, and many Palestinians finally realize for what kind of scum they have been fighting for all the time.

But of course once again, for the pseudo-leftist "anti-imperialist" cheerleaders of Hamas here, this isn't fitting in their black and white star wars world view of the rave freedom fighters of the "anti-imerialist" Hamas, so surely they won't have anything better to say than "Zionist propaganda".

Leo

27th January 2009, 17:45

But, in that case, you are drawing a conclusion that is not only unbecoming of you, is it wildly inaccurate. For example, the SWP has given unconditional (but not uncrtitical) support to other such groups that can in no way be described as 'brown'. The Provisional IRA, for example.

But I am not talking about the IRA (whom I haven't seen the SWP posters here talking much about), and I am not basing what I am saying just on SWP is saying they support Hamas, but also with the way they are doing it.

It is not a slur, it is HOW the SWP arguements and attitude on the Middle East comes accross to me as a communist from the middle east.

benhur

27th January 2009, 18:07

Now, it might be that Lindsey wrote this in an SWP publication, but it does not represent an oficuial SWP point of view, since (as it says, idiot) it is a discussion document.

This is a bizarre line of reasoning, even for you. If you admit that it appeared in an SWP publication, then the SWP is guilty of publishing such hateful, racist articles. Either way, SWP is guilty.

On the same basis, a fool such as you would, I suspect, think that everything published here is Malte's opinion too.

Can you please try to be civil?

BobKKKindle$

27th January 2009, 18:13

The comments relating to the SWP's position on national liberation and "poor brown people" are really pathetic. Our resident Left-Communists are trying to portray us as "evil white people" who are entirely disconnected from the struggles and hardships faced by workers who are living in countries such as Palestine which have come under attack from the imperialist powers, and as people who are trying to impose our arguments and political positions on these situations despite our lack of experience, and by doing so they aim to establish themselves as the "voice" of these workers - although they would never want to say any of this explicitly, of course. This is a pathetic and insulting argument, because it ignores the fact that the IST has sections throughout the world - Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Malaysia, to name but a few. Presumably the workers who are part of these sections agree with our positions on national liberation - otherwise they would be part of the ICC instead.

The Left-Communist position on national liberation carries incredibly insulting undertones, because, according to these noble proponents of internationalism, the only reason workers would ever support or become part of a resistance movement such as Hamas is if they had fallen under the ideological control of the bourgeoisie and are now somehow incapable of thinking for themselves or coming to independent political conclusions - in other words, the workers who voted for Hamas, and mourn the deaths of Hamas leaders, must be deceived, poor little things, and if only they would read Pannekoek, and discuss ICC bulletins in the ruins of their homes and schools, then they would realize that fighting back against imperialism doesn't serve their interests at all, and is merely a plot by the Iranian and Syrian bourgeoisies!

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th January 2009, 18:13

Leo:

But I am not talking about the IRA (whom I haven't seen the SWP posters here talking much about), and I am not basing what I am saying just on SWP is saying they support Hamas, but also with the way they are doing it.

I know you aren't talking about the IRA; I mentioned it since it refutes youir irresponsible musings about what might or might not be going on in the heads of SWP-ers.

It is not a slur, it is HOW the SWP arguements and attitude on the Middle East comes accross to me as a communist from the middle east.

In that case, it is a slur based on personal prejudice -- yours.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th January 2009, 18:15

BenHur:

This is a bizarre line of reasoning, even for you. If you admit that it appeared in an SWP publication, then the SWP is guilty of publishing such hateful, racist articles. Either way, SWP is guilty.

What hateful article?

Can you please try to be civil?

1) You are one to talk. You are little other than rude to me.

2) Not with an idiot like Devrim.

Nosotros

27th January 2009, 18:23

The SWP believe in creating a one party state so i'd say as an organisation they are dead against dissent and opposition and I don't see them as being democratic enough (and i'd say I'm being very polite here), infact I know they are'nt, I used to be a member of the party. I agree with you about the AWL though.

Hit The North

27th January 2009, 19:02

The SWP believe in creating a one party state

:lol:

Leo

27th January 2009, 19:25

In that case, it is a slur based on personal prejudice -- yours.

Not surprising how you people can't deal with criticism of your arguements and attitudes without calling it slurs and slanders.

Our resident Left-Communists are trying to portray us as "evil white people"

We are not trying to portray you as "evil white people" that is ridiculous.

who are entirely disconnected from the struggles and hardships faced by workers who are living in countries such as Palestine which have come under attack from the imperialist powers, and as people who are trying to impose our arguments and political positions on these situations despite our lack of experience

Lack of knowledge rather than lack of experience, but yeah.

and by doing so they aim to establish themselves as the "voice" of these workers

Not so, we are merely pointing out class contradictions, and where the people you fanatically support stand in regards to them.

because it ignores the fact that the IST has sections throughout the world - Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Malaysia, to name but a few.

IST hardly being an organization that is centralized internationally, I'd imagine you'd have a variety of opinions in these different organizations. Of course your position is a common one among Stalinists and Trotskyists internationally, and I'd expect similar positions although I am not talking about the IST, I am talking about the SWP.

The Left-Communist position on national liberation carries incredibly insulting undertones, because, according to these noble proponents of internationalism, the only reason workers would ever support or become part of a resistance movement such as Hamas is if they had fallen under the ideological control of the bourgeoisie

Quite clearly the reason anyone becomes part of a bourgeois movement is having falling under the ideological control of the bourgeoisie, this is the same with those under the influence of Hamas and Al Fatah as well as Likud, Kadima and the Israeli Labour Party, as it is with Democrats and Republicans in the US, Labour and Conservatives in the UK and so forth.

and are now somehow incapable of thinking for themselves or coming to independent political conclusions

This is as ridiculous as saying we think workers are incapable of thinking for themselves or independent political conclusions if they support any other bourgeois organization in any part of the world. In any case, this is not what we are saying at all. They are as capable of it as any worker under the influence of bourgeois ideology, and most workers are under the influence of bourgeois ideology in all parts of the world and still capable of coming to conclusions themselves, although of course whether they do so or not depends on the situation.

in other words, the workers who voted for Hamas, and mourn the deaths of Hamas leaders, must be deceived

All workers who vote are deceived everywhere - the bourgeoisie deceives the working class everywhere and always, this is ABC of marxism.

And yes, people who mourn about dead Hamas leaders are about as deceived as people who mourn about the death of Lady Diana.

little things, and if only they would read Pannekoek, and discuss ICC bulletins in the ruins of their homes and schools

This is simply a petty straw-man.

It has got nothing to do with our theory and everything to do with workers' interests, which are not dying for Hamas' interests, pursuing their own interests.

You don't get it, you think the reason we oppose Hamas can only be because we want us to be in their place. You don't comprehend that class differentiation exists in Palestine and you don't even care about it even if you can comprehend it.

Our arguement is very simple: dying for the interests of Hamas is not in workers' interests, workers' should try to avoid dying for Hamas' interests and should try to survive, by running from battlefields, hiding if possible, by other means if necessary. As for how to support the proletarians dying, we think can't be done by cheering for those sending them to death but by workers struggle against the bourgeoisie where they are.

2) Not with an idiot like Devrim.

Rosa, calling people "idots" is flaming, please don't do it.

Zurdito

27th January 2009, 19:26

The reality of a quasi-state led by Hamas is already reality in the Gaza strip. They are the new ruling class there. No surprise, that Hamas isn't tolerating any opposition, no matter if it's Fataj or someone else. The fail miserable when it's about turning from a resistance troop to an organisation actually making government.

The Hamas police force seems to be completely out of control, and expressive police violence by them against protesters have become routine. Striking workers are getting beaten up, just like those Muslims who are in protest of the politicalized prayer services of the Hamas are praying outside the Mosque (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0XHIz3pLH0&feature=related).

Civil resistance against the Hamas dictatorship is growing every day, and many Palestinians finally realize for what kind of scum they have been fighting for all the time.

But of course once again, for the pseudo-leftist "anti-imperialist" cheerleaders of Hamas here, this isn't fitting in their black and white star wars world view of the rave freedom fighters of the "anti-imerialist" Hamas, so surely they won't have anything better to say than "Zionist propaganda".

it is unlikely that most people who support Palestinian resistance to Israel doubt that Hamas is reactionary or have this "black and white star wars" view. The whole point is that Palestinains fighting agaisnt Israel are not fighting "for Hamas" but for themselves. Why do keep hearing this false line? Palestinains have been under Zionist occupation since 1948, Hamas has only been in government in Gaza since 2006.

It is also funny how no-one who puts forward this "third camp" line ever deals with these exact points.

Let me be graphic (though it's old you get the "picture"):

http://www.enfantsdepalestine.org/IMG/jpg/Colonisation_Palestine_2.jpg

http://www.enfantsdepalestine.org/IMG/jpg/Colonisation_Palestine_2.jpg

So I think that the laughable, conspiracy theory line here is to think that Palestinians are being sent to their deaths by Hamas rather than ethnically cleansed by Zionism simply for being the wrong nationality and regardless of their response.

Black Dagger

28th January 2009, 03:52

I wonder what the Left Communists did during ww2, maybe they made placards both against the German Nazi Party and Against the Jews, Communists, Trade Unionists and resistance movements for fighting back.

This really isn't an acceptable or useful contribution to the discussion. It is a clear provocation to the left-communists of the board (joking that they are anti-semites and anti-communists) and this is your sole response to the topic post. Please consider this a verbal warning for trolling.

GX.

28th January 2009, 04:35

But a moderator gets to say stuff like this with impunity:

The SWP is only a shameless Haniyeh-Meshaal r-r-revolutionary party who wants little brown people to die fighting "imperialism" to be fair.

:ohmy:

GX.

29th January 2009, 04:16

Yeah really - certainly the Israeli government isn't gonna say that they indeed are targeting civilians.

Israel might claim that they are hitting hospitals, schools etc. because they want to assassinate Hamas leaders, but both they and Hamas leaders are quite certain that Hamas leaders are not hiding in hospitals or schools at the moment.

Hamas clearly enjoys mass support. So does the IDF and the hawks in Israel. So does the American Democrat and Republican Parties. So did the Nazi Party. I can go on. Bourgeois nationalist organizations, especially ones supported by other states can manage to get mass support.

Yes certainly, it is not the leadership who suffers, it is the leadership who hides behind the human shield it pushes forward while ordering the sending of a few rockets every once in a while.

People like Haniyeh and Meshaal are quite safe right now, yes. Bombs aren't falling on their hiding places.

Yes, different factions of the bourgeoisie occasionally try to assasinate people from opposing factions, this is so for both Palestinian and Israeli bourgeois politicians. They are regardless quite safe compared to the working population who keeps dying.

What is shameful is pitying people like Ahmed Yassin while masses of Palestinian workers are being massacred.
Are you saying that Hamas used "human shields" or that they were not in proximity of Israel's targets? You're not being consistent.

Besides the human shield meme is just Israel's way of justifying the murder of civilians when a large number of them support national resistance. Even you tactily admit that Israeli forces were targeting civilians and not Hamas. They have always targeted civilians regardless of militant presence, because they are intolerant of any form of self determination. Obviously, then, the people of Gaza should settle for occupation because there is no sense dying for a rival bourgeois nationalism right? I mean clearly, that would be the logical conclusion of this kind of thinking wouldn't it? That occupation is the most humane option?

Black Dagger

29th January 2009, 05:12

But a moderator gets to say stuff like this with impunity:

:ohmy:

Link?

Sorry, i don't read every post - i can only comment on what i actually read and i did not see this post you have quoted (i only read the first page of this thread). So yeah, i don't appreciate your implication - i'm not omnipresent, if i address an individual as i did with Georgi it is because i have noticed their post not because of some kind of administrative conspiracy.

redarmyfaction38

30th January 2009, 22:22

Was there really any class based selection? In the Jewish holocaust, Jews of all classes were murdered.
not the zionisis though, their interpretation of the jewish holy book the "Torah?" alowed them to make deals with the nazis whereby they sold out "lesser jews" for their own survival.
the zionists, suprisingly?, were generally members of that class that lives above nationalist or national politics.
their influence created the state of israel through the sponsorship of terrorism in palestine, it's influence in the usa enables the continued military and economic support of the terrorist state of israel. initially, this was all to fight "the spread of communism", despite the fact that uncle joes "communist" ussr was sending jews to israel faster than an irish loyalist could kill republicans.
and the usa was rehabilitating nazi scientists faster than the human rights courts could trace them.
the rest is all history.
it's the same lesson, you get murdered for promoting working class interest.
nationalist interests, religious interests mean nothing, when it suits those of a certain classs, they will sell you out in order to protect their own interest in order to protect themselves.
end of.

Yehuda Stern

31st January 2009, 01:32

Uh... OK. Anyway, there weren't that many Zionists in the Jewish bourgeoisie either. Zionism was very unpopular with all class of European Jewry until after WWII.

Nosotros

12th February 2009, 18:13

I would appreciate it if some of you wouldn't tell me to fuck off in private messages, pathetic.

The Feral Underclass

13th February 2009, 00:52

I would appreciate it if some of you wouldn't tell me to fuck off in private messages, pathetic.

Who was it?

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2009, 01:25

Wait long enough and the Weekly W*nker will blame the SWP!:lol:

The Feral Underclass

13th February 2009, 01:27

Socialist Wanker, Weekly Wanker. What with all the wankers and wanking I'm surprised either of you manage to get anything done.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2009, 12:10

Takes one t*sser to know another.

Yehuda Stern

13th February 2009, 13:23

This is all very classy debating. But what can you expect from a petty squabble between a Cliffite and an Anarchist, anyway.

Pogue

13th February 2009, 13:53

This is all very classy debating. But what can you expect from a petty squabble between a Cliffite and an Anarchist, anyway.

This is so ironic its unbelievable.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2009, 14:02

YS:

This is all very classy debating. But what can you expect from a petty squabble between a Cliffite and an Anarchist, anyway.

Ah, yet more sectarianism from the Daddy of sectarians himself.

Coggeh

13th February 2009, 18:13

Can a mod just wipe out the last page and a bit so we can get back on topic ?

Anyway just a question , why does the swp recruit towards muslims primarily?and not across class lines ?

13th February 2009, 18:23

This is /politics, not /kindergarten people. If you attack, attack ideas and politics, not people.

Yehuda Stern

14th February 2009, 01:44

This is so ironic its unbelievable.

What's even more surprising is that people who have absolutely nothing to say still manage to keep writing things.

Ah, yet more sectarianism from the Daddy of sectarians himself.

Seeing as for you, 'sectarian' means 'someone who doesn't agree with the SWP,' I am quite proud to be the daddy of sectarians.

Melbourne Lefty

14th February 2009, 02:49

Hamas is not a working class organisation. It it not a national resistance organisation against imperialism, it is a religious organisation that seeks to impose a religious vision.

As such it should not be supported by the working class organisations of the rest of the world.

Yehuda Stern

14th February 2009, 11:24

Hit The North

14th February 2009, 11:29

Anyway just a question , why does the swp recruit towards muslims primarily?and not across class lines ? It doesn't - what gave you such a weird idea?

Red Dreadnought

14th February 2009, 11:47

For the blood of Christ and for the hammer and sickle that Yehuda shows. This fucking nationalism has corrupted a lot of socialist organisations. ¿Why do IST deffend this fucking pro-burgueouis, semi-feudal Hamas:cursing:? Like here in Spain you are allied to sectarian tribes of nationalists like CUP in Catalonia (that have no kind of relationship with real working class) of you defend the fucking bastards national-stalinists of ETA. Why don't you read how spoke Grandizio Munis about em.

Red Dreadnought

14th February 2009, 11:54

Yehuda, I suposse its no easy to wear a h and s at Israel, or to reclaim Trotsky; but yo don't need to support Hamas, even if you are anti-zionist.

And, by the way, who are this PSC?

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2009, 11:57

YS:

What's even more surprising is that people who have absolutely nothing to say still manage to keep writing things.

Stop being so hard on yourself.

Seeing as for you, 'sectarian' means 'someone who doesn't agree with the SWP,' I am quite proud to be the daddy of sectarians.

You see, you can makes sense sometimes.

Just don't let it go to your head.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2009, 12:01

RD:

Why do IST deffend this fucking pro-burgueouis, semi-feudal Hamas

Since they are the only thing standing between the Zionist mass murderers and the Gazan population, dummy.

And the IST only 'defends' its milatary defence of the Gazans, not its politics.

Killfacer

14th February 2009, 13:29

RD:

Since they are the only thing standing between the Zionist mass murderers and the Gazan population, dummy.

And the IST only 'defends' its milatary defence of the Gazans, not its politics.

They hardly stand between it do they. Last time i looked, they cowered in bunkers whilst the Gazan population got bombed the crap out of.

benhur

14th February 2009, 13:43

How easy and simple! But then, working people in Palestine are getting slaughtered while all sorts of leftists lecture them against fighting Israel until they became more socialist. No Palestinian will ever accept this. While workers in Palestine should not politically support Hamas, they're certainly not going to let Israel murder them without a fight.

Working people in Gaza are getting killed, because Hamas with its rocket attacks, is gifting Israel one excuse after another to go after the civilians. When you're outnumbered and outgunned by your enemy, you don't play hero and sacrifice more innocent people just because you have a fetish for anti-imperialist ideals.

A leftist has to make decisions keeping in mind the material conditions and circumstances. Hence, a violent approach is only going to make Israel go after more Palestinians. Non-violence is the way forward for the Palestinian people.

Red Dreadnought

14th February 2009, 14:17

To Rosa: it's very questionable that work of Hamas troops like "interposition force". My be eventually the can destroy a Israely Plane with bombs and in this case maybe its the better option But the better option for palestian population its going to refugees and not support Hamas militia. And politics of Hamas of exclusive nationalism and atacks to Israel civil population give "justification" to Israel propaganda. But even in Yugoslavia, ONU troops could eventually act like "interposition force", ¡well for the people that cuold survive for that!, but politically we can no forget the imperialist nature or ONU. On even, an extrem situation, when Hiroshima nuclear bombing, Japanese anti-air batteries or combat planes "defended" eventually Japanese population; but politically WE CAN'T DEFEND IMPERIALIST JAPAN by this eventuality.

But, you know there are more at IST politics than a mere tactical support. There is a strategical opposition to Yankee Imperialism; but imperialism isn't a group of the powerful countries: like Rosa Luxembourg says, for example in "Junius Pamflet" Imperialist its a global sistem of relations, that includes every country in earth.

AND I THING SHE WAS NOT A DUMMY:D.

PD: What about ETA and its collegues?

Red Dreadnought

14th February 2009, 14:21

Working people in Gaza are getting killed, because Hamas with its rocket attacks, is gifting Israel one excuse after another to go after the civilians. When you're outnumbered and outgunned by your enemy, you don't play hero and sacrifice more innocent people just because you have a fetish for anti-imperialist ideals.

A leftist has to make decisions keeping in mind the material conditions and circumstances. Hence, a violent approach is only going to make Israel go after more Palestinians. Non-violence is the way forward for the Palestinian people. [/QUOTE]

It's exactly what I wanted to explain. But I think that is no a question of non-violence; we can support class violence against exploiters.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2009, 14:29

KillF:

They hardly stand between it do they. Last time i looked, they cowered in bunkers whilst the Gazan population got bombed the crap out of.

Yes, you are so brave, that the last time you looked at your TV, you could see all that was happening on the ground, couldn't you?

Hamas fighters, armed only with Kalashnikovs and RPGs, faced Zionist tanks, phosphorus bombs, Apache and Cobra helicopters, gunboats, F15 and F16 jets, advanced artillery, submarines, armoured bulldozers, a well-equipped army...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Weapons_and_equipment

In future perhaps, we should send you, brave warrior that you are, to defend the Gazans.

Killfacer

14th February 2009, 17:57

KillF:

Yes, you are so brave, that the last time you looked at your TV, you could see all that was happening on the ground, couldn't you?

Hamas fighters, armed only with Kalashnikovs and RPGs, faced Zionist tanks, phosphorus bombs, Apache and Cobra helicopters, gunboats, F15 and F16 jets, advanced artillery, submarines, armoured bulldozers, a well-equipped army...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Weapons_and_equipment

In future perhaps, we should send you, brave warrior that you are, to defend the Gazans.

Do all your posts contain so much sarcasm? I assume it's to compensate for the fact that if you didn't attempt to be funny people wouldn't read your boring link filled essay length posts.

I saw a distinct lack of Kalashinkov weilding hamas soldiers battling it out with Israel during their recent invasion. I find it hard to believe that the people fighting on the ground were the high ranking hamas policy makers. Most of them were probably people who's families have been killed and then hamas have given them a gun and told them to go get themselves blow up.

Nosotros

14th February 2009, 18:15

Who was it?BobKindles

Red Dreadnought

14th February 2009, 18:38

Yes, you are so brave, that the last time you looked at your TV, you could see all that was happening on the ground, couldn't you?

Hamas fighters, armed only with Kalashnikovs and RPGs, faced Zionist tanks, phosphorus bombs, Apache and Cobra helicopters, gunboats, F15 and F16 jets, advanced artillery, submarines, armoured bulldozers, a well-equipped army...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_..._and_equipment (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Weapons_and_equipment)

In future perhaps, we should send you, brave warrior that you are, to defend the Gazans.

The fact that Hamas is weaker, in terms or equipment and material support, doesn't make them revolutionary nor proletarian. We don`t need to be "brave warriors" for a reactionary cause. ¿And what about of this "antiimperialist" Iran, allied of Hamas and Hezbola, that denies Holocaust, or hang on homosexual people?.

Are you sure, you have read Rosa Luxemburg theory on nationalism?

benhur

14th February 2009, 18:41

BobKindles

I am not surprised. BobKindles has done that to me many times. Just ignore him, he's obviously a very disturbed and frustrated guy from SWP.

Killfacer

14th February 2009, 19:24

KillF:

Yes, you are so brave, that the last time you looked at your TV, you could see all that was happening on the ground, couldn't you?

Hamas fighters, armed only with Kalashnikovs and RPGs, faced Zionist tanks, phosphorus bombs, Apache and Cobra helicopters, gunboats, F15 and F16 jets, advanced artillery, submarines, armoured bulldozers, a well-equipped army...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Weapons_and_equipment

In future perhaps, we should send you, brave warrior that you are, to defend the Gazans.

More to the point however, is that the OP i quoted claimed that Hamas were standing between Israel and the Palestinians. Even if you consider them heroic freedom fighters, only the most delusional idiot would think that they were some how protecting Gaza with any success.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2009, 21:16

^^^Well, we can add an incapacity to read to your keyboard heroism:

Even if you consider them heroic freedom fighters, only the most delusional idiot would think that they were some how protecting Gaza with any success.

I did not use the word "protect"; I said this:

Since they are the only thing standing between the Zionist mass murderers and the Gazan population, dummy

As I also said -- we should send you instead --, and then we could give soen grief to the next idiot (there are plenty more waiting in the wings here) who questioned our support for you.

The fact that you are an idiot would not, therefore, diminish our unconditional but critical support for you and your real heroism, this time.

Same with Hamas.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2009, 21:22

RD:

The fact that Hamas is weaker, in terms or equipment and material support, doesn't make them revolutionary nor proletarian. We don`t need to be "brave warriors" for a reactionary cause. ¿And what about of this "antiimperialist" Iran, allied of Hamas and Hezbola, that denies Holocaust, or hang on homosexual people?.

Oh dear, another comrade who seems incapable of understanding a simple argument.

Let me walk you through it again.

The passage you quoted was not aimed at giving a reason why we give unconditional but critical support to Hamas, but at responding to Killfacer's brainless intervention:

they cowered in bunkers whilst the Gazan population got bombed the crap out of.

And if you want to raise questions about Iran, start another thread.

You can then totally misread our answers there, too.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2009, 21:27

KillF:

Do all your posts contain so much sarcasm? I assume it's to compensate for the fact that if you didn't attempt to be funny people wouldn't read your boring link filled essay length posts.

Only those where I respond to heroic keyboard warriors like you.

I saw a distinct lack of Kalashinkov weilding hamas soldiers battling it out with Israel during their recent invasion. I find it hard to believe that the people fighting on the ground were the high ranking hamas policy makers. Most of them were probably people who's families have been killed and then hamas have given them a gun and told them to go get themselves blow up.

You should get a job with Israeli TV; the superhuman power you have of being able to see right into Gaza, from behind your keyboard, and note every last detail, all the while remaining totally biased, would make you a natural.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2009, 21:31

RD:

But, you know there are more at IST politics than a mere tactical support. There is a strategical opposition to Yankee Imperialism; but imperialism isn't a group of the powerful countries: like Rosa Luxembourg says, for example in "Junius Pamflet" Imperialist its a global sistem of relations, that includes every country in earth.

Yes, very clever of Rosa Lux, who from beyond the grave would tell us to ignore the Zionist assault on Gaza, and defend the Palestinian people against the attack from the 'Global System'.

Wait! The 'Global System' has just attacked the shed at the bottom of my garden. Sorry, got to go -- I'm off to defend it...

Killfacer

14th February 2009, 22:01

KillF:

Only those where I respond to heroic keyboard warriors like you.

You should get a job with Israeli TV; the superhuman power you have of being able to see right into Gaza, from behind your keyboard, and note every last detail, all the while remaining totally biased, would make you a natural.

You really are a fucking idiot, when i first joined the forum i thought someone with that many posts must be clever. Instead you just accuse me of being a keyboard warrior and just write innane crap and usually incomprehensible crap.

Considering fuckwitts like you love hamas so much, why aren't you out their fighting!?!

Come back when you have a proper argument instead of calling me a coward.

Killfacer

14th February 2009, 22:03

^^^Well, we can add an incapacity to read to your keyboard heroism:

I did not use the word "protect"; I said this:

As I also said -- we should send you instead --, and then we could give soen grief to the next idiot (there are plenty more waiting in the wings here) who questioned our support for you.

The fact that you are an idiot would not, therefore, diminish our unconditional but critical support for you and your real heroism, this time.

Same with Hamas.

How exactly are they standing in between? If "zionist mass murderers" wanted to, they could wipe out the population of Gaza. Hamas could do absolutly fuck all about it.

Killfacer

14th February 2009, 22:06

^^^Well, we can add an incapacity to read to your keyboard heroism:

I did not use the word "protect"; I said this:

As I also said -- we should send you instead --, and then we could give soen grief to the next idiot (there are plenty more waiting in the wings here) who questioned our support for you.

The fact that you are an idiot would not, therefore, diminish our unconditional but critical support for you and your real heroism, this time.

Same with Hamas.

If i was a homophobic bigot then i would be left wondering why the left wing loved me so much.

redarmyfaction38

14th February 2009, 23:38

It doesn't - what gave you such a weird idea?
maybe it was the experience of the swp's "alliance with "georgeous george gallooway" and their creation of "we mustn't mention socialism" "respect party".

Sam_b

15th February 2009, 00:14

I'd love to see Benhur argue for 'non-violence' to Palestinian people, especially the ones that are living in Gaza. However, his stance doesn't surprise me as he is a zionist apologist.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2009, 01:14

KilledBrainCells:

You really are a fucking idiot, when i first joined the forum i thought someone with that many posts must be clever. Instead you just accuse me of being a keyboard warrior and just write innane crap and usually incomprehensible crap.

Still so brave behind your keyboard, I see.

Considering fuckwitts like you love hamas so much, why aren't you out their fighting!?!

Unlike you, I do not pretend to be a fearless warrior hiding behind a computer.

Come back when you have a proper argument instead of calling me a coward.

Quite the reverse; I think you are ever so brave. I certainly can't match your fearless oppostion to Zionists tanks with my copy of Windows.

Or are you using Linux? Perhaps that's where I went wrong...

How exactly are they standing in between? If "zionist mass murderers" wanted to, they could wipe out the population of Gaza. Hamas could do absolutly fuck all about it.

You tell me; after all you are the super hero who can see all, defend all.

If i was a homophobic bigot then i would be left wondering why the left wing loved me so much.

You like to use the word 'love' don't you?

Hardly fits with your macho, action man pose.

Er.., don't tell me it's all a pose!?

My hero has feet of clay...!:(

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2009, 01:16

RAF:

maybe it was the experience of the swp's "alliance with "georgeous george gallooway" and their creation of "we mustn't mention socialism" "respect party".

RAF, sweetie, I thought you had gotten over your knee-jerk sectarian phase.:(

Killfacer

15th February 2009, 11:47

KilledBrainCells:

Still so brave behind your keyboard, I see.

Unlike you, I do not pretend to be a fearless warrior hiding behind a computer.

Quite the reverse; I think you are ever so brave. I certainly can't match your fearless oppostion to Zionists tanks with my copy of Windows.

Or are you using Linux? Perhaps that's where I went wrong...

You tell me; after all you are the super hero who can see all, defend all.

You like to use the word 'love' don't you?

Hardly fits with your macho, action man pose.

Er.., don't tell me it's all a pose!?

My hero has feet of clay...!:(

If all your shitty little arguments consist of is the fact that i don't fancy being turned into dust by some Israeli bombing then shut the fuck up.

The point is, i never said anything about people being brave. I simply said that the idea that Hamas were somehow standing in between the Gazans and the IDF is laughable. Something you have yet to address.

Grow up, for someone as senior as yourself to go on this kind of childish and frankly laughable tangent is really pathetic.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2009, 14:12

KillsHisToys:

If all your shitty little arguments consist of is the fact that i don't fancy being turned into dust by some Israeli bombing then shut the fuck up.

The point is, i never said anything about people being brave. I simply said that the idea that Hamas were somehow standing in between the Gazans and the IDF is laughable. Something you have yet to address.

Grow up, for someone as senior as yourself to go on this kind of childish and frankly laughable tangent is really pathetic.

You know you really are going to have to throw much more than a tantrum, a few soft toys and that teething ring you have just bitten through, if you want to scare away the Zionist tanks.

But who am I to argue with a superhero?

15th February 2009, 14:18

In future perhaps, we should send you, brave warrior that you are, to defend the Gazans.

What a disgusting attitude, even if it was apparent sarcasm. You should be ashamed.

Just what makes you think you are any closer to the Gazans than anyone else, out of curiousity?

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2009, 15:39

fup:

What a disgusting attitude, even if it was apparent sarcasm. You should be ashamed.

Yes I am thoroughly ashamed of the fact that I exposed Kill-whatever's internet bravery, 'his' chest beating, and 'his' obvious glee that Hamas were no match for the Zionist mass murderers.

After all, what I did was far worse than attack the only force, pathetic though it is, that stands between those murderers and the Gazans.

Just what makes you think you are any closer to the Gazans than anyone else, out of curiousity?

Nothing, but I do not pretend to be able to see, superhero-like, right into Gaza, and see what Hama did or did not do -- as Kill-whatever does.

Hid as 'he' is behind 'his' computer screen.

And, out of curiousity, who the f*** asked you?

This brave warrior can defend 'himself'; I am sure 'he' has plenty more soft toys 'he' can hurl.

So, if you fight any more of 'his' battles for 'him', we might have to revise our estimation that 'he' is the hero of the hour.

benhur

15th February 2009, 16:11

Comrades, please! We're supposed to be fighting the bourgeois. Let's not lose focus, and fight amongst ourselves. Abusing each other isn't helping.

To get back to the topic, though, hamas is doing more harm than good by trying to win impossible battles. Pick the battles you can win, proceed slowly and rationally in a situation like this, that's all I am suggesting. Not at all implying that Palestinians must go down on their knees. But fighting in this case is suicide for the Palestinian people. Violence must be employed in cases, where there's at least some scope for improvement and success. In this case, a violent approach will kill more Palestinian people. Is this necessary?

By following non-violence (not as an absolute principle, but as something you do depending on the situation), Palestinians not only win the world's sympathy, but they won't give Israel any chance to get back at them. Of course, the predictable argument from the likes of Sam B would be: if Palestinians don't fight, will not Israel kill finish them all off? The answer is NO! First of all, if Palestinians fight, more people from their side are going to suffer Israel's wrath and die in the process, so 'not fighting' isn't going to be any worse. Second, non-violence seems to be the only unexplored option, every other option has not only failed but put Palestinians in great danger.

If leftists have any sympathy at all for Palestinians, they wouldn't ask them to fight (a losing battle) and die for the likes of hamas. A much better approach is to make sure Israel doesn't get any more excuses to kill them, then proceed from there. Awaken the workers from both sides, show them the common enemy which is the bourgeois from both sides. It's a process, an evolution, and it'll take time. But it's much better than sitting in London and asking Palestinians to die needlessly, just because some of them have a fetish for anti-imperialism.

Killfacer

15th February 2009, 16:42

KillsHisToys:

You know you really are going to have to throw much more than a tantrum, a few soft toys and that teething ring you have just bitten through, if you want to scare away the Zionist tanks.

But who am I to argue with a superhero?

More childish ramblings :rolleyes: You really are pathetic. Then you think of lame unfunny names. You're still not answering anything. You pathetic loser.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2009, 18:35

Kill-whatever:

More childish ramblings You really are pathetic. Then you think of lame unfunny names. You're still not answering anything. You pathetic loser.

You know, I'm coming round to your way of fighting Zionist terror: throw a few teddy bears at them from behind the couch.

Why didn't Hamas think of that?

Way to go Action Man!:)

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2009, 18:38

BenHmph:

hamas is doing more harm than good

Yes, they were responsible for killing all those Gazans!

And to think, we imagined it was the Zionists!

Silly us...:rolleyes:

Stick to chariot racing in future.:mad:

Hit The North

15th February 2009, 19:15

maybe it was the experience of the swp's "alliance with "georgeous george gallooway" and their creation of "we mustn't mention socialism" "respect party".

Just on a semantic point: If we had intended to not mention socialism then RESPECT would have been called REPECT.

But thanks for your input.

15th February 2009, 19:18

And, out of curiousity, who the f*** asked you?

Your crappy posts beckoned me.

This brave warrior can defend 'himself'; I am sure 'he' has plenty more soft toys 'he' can hurl.

Your torrent of petty insults are the actual equivalent of hurling soft toys.

So, if you fight any more of 'his' battles for 'him', we might have to revise our estimation that 'he' is the hero of the hour.

I simply commented on that specific thing of yours I quoted.

As you're so insistent you are the superior force, the vanguard in this "brave and historic fight for the Palestinians" (yeah right, for), you might want to explain why you mistakenly think you're fighting in Gaza in solidarity with them and why you think you know the situation there entirely.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2009, 19:30

fup:

Your crappy posts beckoned me

And can we thank you for lowering the standard even further?

Your torrent of petty insults are the actual equivalent of hurling soft toys.

Indeed, and I learnt that tactic off our very own hero: SuperKill.

I simply commented on that specific thing of yours I quoted.

As you're so insistent you are the superior force, the vanguard in this "brave and historic fight for the Palestinians" (yeah right, for), you might want to explain why you mistakenly think you're fighting in Gaza in solidarity with them and why you think you know the situation there entirely.

Eh?:confused:

Killfacer

15th February 2009, 20:23

Kill-whatever:

You know, I'm coming round to your way of fighting Zionist terror: throw a few teddy bears at them from behind the couch.

Why didn't Hamas think of that?

Way to go Action Man!:)

Yeah it's a pretty good way of fighting the zionists. See, i figure if i throw teddies then at least i won't bring down the full wrath of the IDF onto the gazans. Unlike Hamas who launch futile attacks then get civilians blown up.

So yeah, i guess throwing teddy bears is an idea with more merit than anything Hamas have thought of.

Yehuda Stern

15th February 2009, 20:34

Yehuda, I suposse its no easy to wear a h and s at Israel, or to reclaim Trotsky;

Yeah, sure, they're all Trotskyists in here. What a stupid thing to say. Only rivaled by the gems spewed out by Rosa in this thread.

Cumannach

15th February 2009, 22:25

Working people in Gaza are not getting killed because Hamas are firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets. That was not the reason for the barbaric Israeli assault on the Gaza strip. A relevant article is posted on N. Finkelstein's website;

"On 4 November, while the American media were riveted on election day, Israel broke the ceasefire by killing seven Palestinian militants, on the flimsy excuse that Hamas was digging a tunnel to abduct Israeli soldiers, and knowing full well that its operation would provoke Hamas into hitting back. "Last week's ‘ticking tunnel,' dug ostensibly to facilitate the abduction of Israeli soldiers," Haaretz reported in mid-November

was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm's way. It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of "controlled entry" into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy -- not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground.[43]

After Hamas predictably resumed its rocket attacks " [I]n retaliation" (Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center),[44] Israel could embark on yet another murderous invasion in order to foil yet another Palestinian peace offensive."

-Norman Finkelstein

The Israeli state is eager to prevent a situation that might see it having to accept international consensus and settle for a two state solution on the june '67 borders and a negotiated solution to the refugee issue. This would be a step forward for the Palestinian people and a step backward for Israeli hegemony over them, and thus for Israeli power. This is why it embarks on these murderous military adventures on falsified pretexts. It's because Hamas was signaling it could consider the two state solution:

"...in March 2008 Khalid Mishal, head of Hamas's Political Bureau, stated in an interview:

There is an opportunity to deal with this conflict in a manner different than Israel and, behind it, the U.S. is dealing with it today. There is an opportunity to achieve a Palestinian national consensus on a political program based on the 1967 borders, and this is an exceptional circumstance, in which most Palestinian forces, including Hamas, accept a state on the 1967 borders....There is also an Arab consensus on this demand, and this is a historic situation. But no one is taking advantage of this opportunity. No one is moving to cooperate with this opportunity. Even this minimum that has been accepted by the Palestinians and the Arabs has been rejected by Israel and by the U.S.[29]"

-Norman Finkelstein

Full article;
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2542