As ever, the dominant narrative being presented to us on the current conflict in Gaza is that Israel is defending itself and its civilians against unprovoked aggression by Palestinian terrorists. And as expected, it is the same narrative being pushed in Washington and London, as like a well-rehearsed play the actors involved perform their respective roles with the same old aplomb.
It is the same narrative we have been subjected to over countless years, one intended to paint Israel, that democratic outpost of western civilisation surrounded by barbarian hordes intent on its destruction, as perennial victim.
But as in the past, so as now, it is a lie.
The truth is the current conflict has little if anything to do with Hamas or its rockets. It does however have everything to do with the state of Israel’s decades-long policy of occupation, embargo, siege, collective punishment, expropriation, ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Israel’s war is not with Hamas but with the Palestinian people in their entirety, both the 1.5 million in Gaza and the 2.5-3 million in the West Bank. It is a war waged every hour of every day there is occupation, checkpoints, and settlements. It is a war waged every hour of every day there is an economic embargo, siege, and collective punishment. It is a war being waged every second of the indignity and humiliation suffered by its victims.
Yet despite the irrefutable facts of Israel’s barbaric treatment of a people criminalised for daring to exist, we are treated to a constant inversion of the truth, which holds that the many and multiple depredations being suffered by the Palestinians do not amount to one of the most sustained and grievous crimes against humanity in history, but are the result of their intransigence and violence. This is the song of colonialism. The victims always bring it on themselves. If only they would learn to bear their chains in silence. As Golda Meir said, “We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.”
And they are killing them, right now, even as the world looks on – again.
Worse, when we consider that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people constitutes a clear and inarguable breach of international law, and has done for decades, the Western media’s continuing policy of ascribing a moral equivalence between Israel, an oppressive settler colonial state, and the Palestinians, an oppressed colonised people, monumental insult is added to monstrous injury. There is no moral equivalence. Nor can there ever be one.
Israel’s latest military assault against the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, which, at 40km long and 10km wide with a population of between 1.5 and 1.7 million people, is one of the most densely populated pieces of land in the world, goes by the biblical name of ‘Operation Pillar of Cloud’. As with ‘Operation Cast Lead’ four years ago, during which 1400 Palestinians were killed, thousands more were wounded, and war crimes, as adduced by the UN and the Red Cross, were committed wholesale, this latest military operation is designed to terrify the Palestinians into submission.
The major, though as yet unquantifiable, difference between now and then is Egypt. Mubarak, Israel’s man in Cairo, has been replaced by Morsi, the first democratically elected president of Egypt and champion of the Muslim Brotherhood, and at time of writing the prime minister of Egypt has already visited Gaza to show solidarity and offer Egypt’s rhetorical support to the Palestinians. The question now is how this support will manifest if, as expected, Israel escalates its assault in the days ahead. The answer could well have a bearing on the future not only for the Palestinians but the region as a whole.
Meanwhile in Washington the Obama administration, thus far supporting Israel in time-honoured fashion when it comes to the US and its closest ally, will not relish the prospect of strained relations with the most populous Arab nation in the world. Not now with the region still in a state of flux as a result of the Arab Spring. And not even despite the fact that Israel is and remains America’s closest ally. Former US president Ronald Reagan, with the candour of a man accustomed to making and breaking governments at will, said it best: “The greatest security for Israel is to create new Egypts”.
A new Egypt has been created, but not by Israel or the US, by the Egyptian people. And it remains to be seen how this will impact on Israel’s ability to continue in the old way.
It is a question that is still to be answered. What we know for certain now is that oppression breeds resistance. The rockets being fired against Israel from inside Gaza are the natural response of a people under siege for the crime of exercising their democratic right to elect a government of their own choice. And when it comes to that government, Hamas’s supreme crime, according to Israel and its apologists, is that in its charter it states its desire to see the destruction of Israel. Standing alone, and shorn of any historical or actual context, it is a desire that cannot be understood or accepted by any reasonable person. But add this context, in the shape of the previously mentioned decades-long occupation and policy of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and national humiliation: is it really beyond comprehension that the people suffering this oppression may develop along the way a hatred of their oppressor, however irrational it might seem to us who don’t and consequently could never understand its dehumanising impact?
In the last analysis, the only way Israel will ever be able to guarantee its security is if it guarantees the security of the Palestinians. This will first of all require an end to the inherent racism that exists in the heart of every coloniser towards those being colonised. The Palestinians are not subhumans. They are not products of a lesser culture or race. They are a people who have suffered six decades of injustice that continues as a stain on the conscience of the world.
Incinerating their children in the name of civilisation and democracy renders both meaningless.
Kenny on said:
Thanks for posting this article John, it serves as a helpful antidote to the poison we’ve been fed by the media these past few days.
Neil Willaims on said:
Great article John – it needs reposting everywhere.
Sam64 on said:
Yep, absolutely defines it..
Rob the cripple on said:
War in the middle East with Iran being an American target, we see the Israeli army build up do they really need all those weapons for the Gaza
Dick Gregory on said:
“The Hamas prime minister’s HQ, hit with five missiles, also totally destroying that building, which was almost certainly evacuated. But the scene here is the picture we’ve been seeing all week, that civilians are being caught up in the violence.”
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20374282]
Targeting civilian infrastructure is as much a war crime as it was last time, when fifty policemen were murdered in the first assault. Obviously those countries that refused to consider war crimes prosecutions then bear a heavy responsibility.
SA on said:
A timely article as we are deluged in offensive Israeli lies.
What will Egypt do?
Fuck_Communists on said:
You commies are all a bunch of terrorist loving scum!
[note from tony - this idiot posts from University of Stirling computers, always with the same sort of embarrasing, juvenile nonsense. Recently, we had one hoping that a union demonstration would fail; what a pleasant character this idiot is]
jack ford on said:
If Hizbollah fucked us up
And made us run with our tails between our legs
Lets pound our chests to the prisoners of Gaza Hell yeah
If all our threats to pulverise Iran serves only as comic relief
Lets snuff the lives out of the Jabaliyans Hell yeah
If our illusion of invincibility is forever shattered
Lets flatten Rafa Hell yeah
When our neurotic and imaginery superiority is forever rendered moot
Lets show the defenceless of Khan Yunis how brave we are Hell yeah
If we are terrified of taking on the soldiers of Hamas
Let’s send in F-16s and Apaches Hell yeah
If the hand of time is dealing our Zionist dream a cruel blow
Let the wretched of Deir al Balah feel the full force of our frustration. Hell yeah
If the knowledge that taking on Iran would sound the death knell of our racist project
Lets have an orgy while the defenceless of Al Shati are incinerated. Hell yeah
We are the soldiers of the IDF
Forward we march, except when confronted by Hizbullah. Oh yeah
We are the proudest of ethnic cleansers
We wear that badge with honour and pride. Fuck yeah
M.c on said:
Israel’s killing of civilians is wrong, but what the fuck was Hamas thinking? They have been firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel all year, did they really expect Israel to not retaliate?
Bern on said:
(WASHINGTON DC) – The following statement by Noam Chomsky indicates a different stand toward Israeli aggression than Prof. Chomsky has revealed in the past: “The incursion and bombardment of Gaza is not about destroying Hamas. It is not about stopping rocket fire into Israel, it is not about achieving peace.
Chomsky Statement on Israel’s War on Gaza
It is not a war, it is murder.
full statement @
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20121118003140399
Charlie Brown on said:
Israel’sHamas’s [mostly failed attempts at] killing civilians is wrong, but what the fuck wasHamasIsrael thinking? They have beenfiring rocketskilling Palestinians all year, did they really expectIsraelHamas to not retaliate?There, fixed that for you.
Marko on said:
The Palestinians have every right to resist their oppressors. In fact, it is not their right but their duty.
I for one do not recognise Israel or it’s right to exist. I have to accept it does exist because it is a monstrous armed to the teeth settler state. It is the face of the US in the Middle East, and what an ugly stain on the world it is.
Karl Stewart on said:
Excellent piece John, and some interesting points about Egypt.
I think I’m right in saying the Gaza area was part of Egypt until the 1967 war. Do you think it’s forseeable that it could at some point go back under Egyptian rule?
Mark Victorystooge on said:
The question was addressed elsewhere, but I can answer part of it. Gaza was under an “All-Palestine” government from 1948 to 1959, then it was directly ruled by Egypt until the Israelis captured it in 1967.
Karl Stewart on said:
I’ve never heard of an “All-Palestine Government” Mark. I’d always thought Egypt took Gaza when Israel was formed and that the West Bank was part of Jordan, which was itself part of the original “Mandate Palestine”.
So I don’t think there’s ever been an independent “All-Palestine Government” as “Mandate Palestine” was British ruled and previously was part of the Ottoman Empire – as far as I’m aware.
Anyway, as to the current horrendous situation, I think Egyptian intervention is the only viable hope for the Gaza people to stop these horrific attacks by the Israelis and the hope must be that Egypt will intervene sooner rather than later.
I could certainly see Gaza coming back under Egypt eventually, as I can’t see any other way they can fight off this constant Israeli aggression.
As John makes clear in his piece, Gaza on its own is an unviable state and as we can see, far too vulnerable to these constant Israeli attacks.
But joining with Egypt would deter Israeli aggression and would be the best option for the Gaza people.
Jellytot on said:
@15 I think Egyptian intervention is the only viable hope for the Gaza people to stop these horrific attacks by the Israelis and the hope must be that Egypt will intervene sooner rather than later.
I cannot see the Egyptians intervening directly so I don’t think intervention is viable – that would jepardise the massive US and EU financial aid packages to Egypt (the former being tied to the continuance of the Camp David accords). The Egyptian armed forces , too, would not want to risk conflict with the Israeli military; a conflict that it could well come out of the poorer and a defeat could destroy its powerful position in society.
In the short to medium term I think the best we can hope for is for Egypt to act as a diplomatic persuader and a rhetorical ally of the Palestinians……for what that’s worth.
Karl Stewart on said:
I think Egypt would be fully justified in moving into Gaza for several reasons, particularly if Israel launches ground operations.
Firstly, Gaza was previously part of Egypt’s own territory.
Secondly, I think that the Egyptians, allied with the Gazan fighters could see off the Israelis.
Thirdly, the Egyptians are right next door – the logistics make them the country best placed to actually go in there and help and I think they’d be strongly supported if they did.
I think, if Israel launches ground operations, Egypt can’t just stand by and watch.
John on said:
Egypt is in no position to confront Israel militarily at this point. It would be folly for it to even try. You have to be realistic. We can’t even be sure that Morsi is in in full control of the Egyptian military. His is a classic case of a leader being in office but not so much in power.
Keeping the Rafah crossing open for medical assistance and supplies can be expected.
I think Morsi should have visited Gaza personally, rather than send his PM. In fact, I’d like to see him and other Arab leaders go there and stay as human shields. This would up the stakes of continued Israeli military action considerably. It would also energise the Arab street.
Chris on said:
No one can support Israel anymore. It’s immoral.
Karl Stewart on said:
John (18): “Egypt is in no position to confront Israel militarily at this point. It would be folly for it to even try.”
But the Gaza people are confronting them daily, and being battered to pieces and it’s right on Egypt’s doorstep.
Surely a ground invasion by Israel would be a perfectly legitimate justification for Egypt going in?
We could then argue for UK intervention in support of Egypt and the Gaza people.
I’m not one who opposes Israel’s existence by the way – I do support Israel’s right to be. But only within their own borders.
They do need to be stopped from their constant attacks on Gaza and from invading.
And they must be removed from the Palestinian West Bank too.
In both cases, Israeli aggression has gone on for so long that it’s clear only determined military force will deter them.
Noah on said:
To decisively assist the Palestinians in Gaza, Egypt would only need to end its connivance with the Israeli blockade of Gaza, and ensure that they were able to import and export freely. Including munitions.
If Egypt were to ensure that the Palestinians in Gaza had access to modern sophisticated weapons, or even to facilitate them in importing such weapons- precision guided missiles for example- that would be a ‘game changer’. But of course, that has not been forthcoming from the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt- or, from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the other ‘pro-Western’ Arab regimes.
Actually, what would deter Israel would be the ending of Western sponsorship. Without that sponsorship, Israel’s colonialist massacres & aggression would not be possible.
Israel receives annually $3 billion of high tech weapons free of charge from the USA, free & heavily subsidised nuclear-ready submarines from Germany, & other weapons from the UK, France & Italy. Israel has partnership status with the EU and NATO, & conducts regular joint military exercises with NATO. And of course, the Western countries provide Israel with diplomatic cover and excuses.
The Israelis would be unable to carry out their blockades, murders, illegal settlements etc without all of that.
SA on said:
21. Not a word of a lie there Noah, that’s how it is.
CJB on said:
Good article, I think its naive to think that the British government will do anything other than support Israel, lets not forget without the British government the existence of Israel would not have been, The USA/EU ongoing support for the bastards regardless of what they do sends a clear message that Israel truly has the west by the balls, either by financial constraints or some other form of influence…sickening
Noah on said:
Hmmmmmm. Do you suppose that the Western ruling elites are secretly against Israeli domination & aggression, but put on a public front of supporting Israel, as well as subsidising it, arming it, etc etc- because the Israelis somehow force them to do this?
Most unlikely. And anyway, why should the West be supposed to have an underlying interest or viewpoint opposed to Israel’s?
Rather than Israel having the West “by the balls”, Israel- not so unlike apartheid South Africa in its day- is a de-facto Western outpost. In Israel you can see a concentrated & exaggerated expression of the worst and most disgusting aspects of Western policy.
iair on said:
i’m sorry to tell you that you are just a bunch of ignorants (pacifists, yes, but ignorants) that don’t have a clue what you are talking about
you want to talk, have a based opinion of what really is going on here? COME HERE, look, feel it, talk to people from both sides, and LIVE what we are living. sitting on your fat asses when you have never heard the siren upon your roof, and the missiles exploding (And that is just 1% of the story) is just hypocritical.
there is no conflict here, this is the one of the stupidest thing that has ever occurred to the humanity – one side wants the other one dead, more that he wants his own people alive – THERE IS NO ONE in the other side to talk with.
whenever you understand this last phrase think again what is the solution that the israeli government has to propose.
and i will be glad to have a response
Vanya on said:
#24 Noah I don’t think there’s a contradiction between the Israelis (and different factions therein) having relatively autonomous positions from those of imperialism, which is itself not monolithic.
#25 Speaking personally I’m no pacifist. If I was I would not support the right of the oppressed to resist oppression, which I do. Especially when my government (British) is assisting the oppressors.
Blaming the victims only works up to a point by the way. The world isn’t taken in by that stuff quite so much.
There was a particularly telling bit on the news the other day when a recently arrived Jewish immigrant from Russia was telling the Israeli government to flatten Gaza.
Her sentiments spoke volumes.
Noah on said:
I agree. Israel is a colonialist entity ‘in its own right’ and has its own agenda. However it can’t be properly understood except as part of the imperialist bloc.
camul on said:
Question is old brown-noser, have you got the t-shirt yet ?
CJB on said:
No not at all, I believe that no matter what Israel does it will have the backing of the USA/UK/EU, all evidence indicates that with the western media and politicians talking constant shite in regards to any atrocities carried out by the Israeli government, why lie about what’s going on or play down events that actually happen, why the need for them to do that, go to such lengths to try an convince the general public that Israel can do no wrong? Who or what is motivating them to deny the undeniable…this is what makes me believe that Israel has some clout over these other imperialistic countries, or maybe they are all just in cahoots…
Omar on said:
iair,
iair,
The problem is that Israel, by it’s actions , does not appear to actually want peace. When peace talks have occured, and treaties agreed upon, either a hawkish leader is elected who proceeds to effectively tear-up the previous agreement (Netanyahu in the 90′s) or they effectively scupper negotiations with game-playing (Barak at Camp David). Combine this with the siege and relentless oppression of Gaza for decades and you have a recipe for violence because the victims cannot find any justice or relief.
Noah on said:
Well certainly the pro-Israel lobby in the USA & other Western countries carries plenty of clout!
However that lobby would not have anywhere near the traction that it does were it not for Israel + the Western countries being very much ‘in cahoots’.
I strongly recommend the first chapter of Norman Finkelstein’s ‘The Holocaust Industry’ for some very useful insights on how the pro-Israel lobby in the USA developed in the USA (especially post-1967) in the context of the Cold War & Israel’s acquired status as a strategic asset of US imperialism.
Re: the ongoing ‘special’ relationship between Israel and the West, particularly the USA, and why that persists in the post-Cold War period; I wrote an article on this in 2009 focusing on the issue of Western-Israeli nuclear collaboration:
http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/israel_and_the_west_a_nuclear_romance_01922.html
Vanya on said:
#28 0ver my head there.
#29 I don’t think there’s one simple answer.
There are probably a number of linked concerns, with differing degrees of importance for the west and different interest groups therein:
1) The strategic importance of the region and having reliable allies there.
2) The specific location of Palestine/Israel on the east coast of the med and close to Egypt and therefore the canal.
3) The large and influential pro-Israel lobby in the USA.
4) Within (3) above a very powerful section of fanatical christian fundamentalists many of whom are more pro-zionist even than a significant number of Jews, who have a variety of positions.
5) A racist colonialist mentality which for many in the west, particularly the anglo speaking countries, sees the Jews and Arabs as a civilised ‘us’ and an uncivilised backward ‘them’, and related islamophobia (although many Palestinians are of course christians).
6) A feeling that to reduce support to Israel to the extent that they would be forced to the negotiating table in a meaningful way would be seen as admission of defeat for a significant plank of particularly US foreign policy.
6) Residual european guilt about the nazi holocaust.
Vickie on said:
Kenny,
So tell me. When has Israel even awakened in the morning and said, “Hmm. Let’s go kill some people”? No. It has never happened. They simply defend themselves and then the ones who started it cry “Foul.” Shame on Hamas.
mark anthony france on said:
This Was a message I sent to West Midlands Palestine Solidarity Campaign and some individuals who worked on Gaza Solidarity during the last Israeli Attack in the new year 2009 – the media seem keen in the West Midlands to give some sort of a voice to Palestine Solidarity Activists… and all of us should seize the opportunity to speak out.
“Hi All
I was involved in a BBCRadioWM Debate this morning on the Adrian Goldberg Show up against Ruth Jacobs [Israeli Embassy Employee] – as a result of this BBC Radio Hereford and Worcester are asking me to take part in a ‘Drivetime’ show this evening…. I can’t do this so are there any PSC people in Worcester who can take part in the show?? The debate is 1 hour 34mins in on this i-player link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p010l1bt
Mark
Mark Anthony France
22 Perryfields Crescent
Bromsgrove
B61 8SS
01527836156
07554886576″
tony collins on said:
Hi Vickie! Hey, what do you think the interior minister meant when he said that the goal of this military assault is to “send Gaza back to the middle ages”?
What did he mean? Did he mean that he didn’t wake up and say “let’s go kill some people”? I mean, it sounds like he is specifically saying he wants to create such chaos and destruction, the people of Gaza will be crushed.
What do you think? Any words of “shame” for him?
Vickie on said:
tony collins,
Sadly, if my home city and country were being constantly bombed I think I also would like to disarm my attackers by sending their ability to use technology that was being used to kill my fellow citizens to a time like the middle ages. I wish it were not so but defense is a reasonable response to attack.
tony collins on said:
But that’s not what I asked. Sending a country back to the middle ages isn’t about stopping them from resisting or attacking, it’s about removing their ability to even live. You deliberately narrowed the focus of his comments on to weaponry. But he didn’t say that. He didn’t say “The goal is to send their weapons manufacture abilities back to the middle ages”. He said the aim is to send *Gaza* back to the middle ages. You do see the difference don’t you? There’s no “sadly” about this. He has said Israel’s aim isn’t defence, it is to absolutely destroy a society.
Of course, Gaza’s military isn’t even at middle ages levels, is it? It has no vehicles, no army, no boats (well, there are fishing boats, but the IDF mercilessly shoots at those – “sadly”, I suppose you’d say).
And of course that’s before we get into the massive continuing breaches of international law, and the rights of the Palestinians to resist occupation by military means – if you’re actually interested in human rights, then you have to start from a position that even if you don’t like it, the people of Gaza have a legal right to resist.
And of course that’s also before we get to the point that it is always Israel that breaches the ceasefire.
Using your own logic, the people of Gaza should send Israel back to the middle ages, right?
Noah on said:
@ Vickie #36. Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza have killed 27 people in Israel since 2004.
Are you even aware of how many thousand Palestinians have been killed in Gaza by the IDF during that period?
Karl Stewart on said:
My personal opinion is:
1. Israel back to within its pre-1967 borders.
2. The pre-1967 “West Bank” to be a fully independent state of Palestine.
3. Gaza back to Egypt.
John on said:
Whether the people living there like it or not? Are you serious? The people living and being slaughtered in Gaza are Palestinians not Egyptians. Their struggle is for Palestinian self determination. It has cost them dearly. Now you expect them to be absorbed by Egypt?
Karl Stewart on said:
Whoa there John, it’s only my personal opinion, I’m not one of the UN negotiators so it’s not particularly important what I think is it?
Of course it would be totally wrong and downright stupid for anything like that to be imposed, so of course a vote on something like that would be the only possible way.
But what are the alternatives?
1. A fully independent Gaza? – unviable and hugely vulnerable to constant “cold war” attrition from Israel, with the constant threat of military attack.
2. The current fairly unclear situation of semi-autonomy from Israel? – Israel feels able to attack whenever it likes and despite the remarkable and inspiring courage and fighting spirit of the Gaza people, they can’t defeat Israel on their own.
2. Direct occupation by Israel? – this was the appalling situation for several decades following 1967. Surely no-one apart from the ultra-zionists want that.
3. A separated part of a future Palestinian state, with a huge chunk of Israel in between and a completely separate political governance structure from the West Bank and a ruling party staunchly opposed to the ruling party of the West Bank? – Can such an arrangment possibly work?
4. Incorporation back into Egypt?
What do you think would work best John?
Noah on said:
I hardly think it would assist the viability of a future Palestinian state to deprive it of its largest city and its access to the sea.
Karl Stewart on said:
Do you think a separated state can work Noah?
John on said:
Sorry if I misconstrued what you meant, Karl. However the way you wrote it, it sounded as if you were advocating Egypt taking back control of Gaza regardless of the wishes of the people living there.
But on your wider point, a West Bank Palestinian state isn’t viable, in my opinion. What about the refugees, for example? How could they be absorbed into the West Bank with Israel obdurate in its refusal to countenance their return and the dismantlement of the settlements.
I really think things have gone past the point of a two state solution now.
Marko on said:
Option 5 -
Wipe Israel off the map and in its place have a county called Palestine_Israel United Territories, allowing the scattered Palestinian refugees right of return. A reconciliation committee would be created where Israeli’s would have to explain their barbarity.
Process to be overseen by UN, with troops on the ground.
andy newman on said:
John,
Sadly- both the two state and one state solutions seem equally impossible at the moment.
John on said:
Yes. Sadly.
jack ford on said:
They are both equally impossible for the foreseeable future. However I suspect that when the balance of power finally swings against Israel the Palestinians by that time will not be interested in the two state solution. It almost certainly died with Rabin and Arafat.
Omar on said:
andy newman,
#46
It’s only “impossible” because of the lack of backbone shown by governments around the world. A programme of sanctions imposed against Israel would bring them to the table tout suite. Is the alternative to forget about the Palestinians because the situation seems hopeless?
Mark Victorystooge on said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Palestine_government
Egypt dominated Gaza and this was more a symbolic than actual “government”.
The Palestinians from Gaza I have met certainly did not consider themselves to be Egyptians.
Jellytot on said:
@45Wipe Israel off the map and in its place have a county called Palestine_Israel United Territories, allowing the scattered Palestinian refugees right of return. A reconciliation committee would be created where Israeli’s would have to explain their barbarity.Process to be overseen by UN, with troops on the ground.
Toytown politics. It simply will not happen.
I hate to state it but the plight of the Palestinian people does seem hopeless, at present. Some say that the Palestinians must be drawn into, and gain strength from, the energy and dynamic of “The Arab Spring”. What is notable, so far, is how Israel has be relatively unaffected from the upheavals; a sign, perhaps, of the strength and solidity of their position?
andy newman on said:
Omar,
Omar. Well yes, Arab children are dying in Israeli bombing attacks while Arab oil exports are being shipped to Israel’s main ally, the USA, like business as normal.
My point is that in the limited experience of my own brief trip to Palestine, the issue of two states or otherwise seemed abstract and irrelevant to all the activists and politicians I met. Palestinian civil society is more engaged with the daily grind of surviving and people dont have preconditions or blueprints for what an eventual just peace might look like.
Marko on said:
“I hate to state it but the plight of the Palestinian people does seem hopeless”
Give me the warm glow of Toytown over dreary nihilism any day of the week.
We need to co-ordinate the fight back, lets step up the boycott campaign etc. We should also recognise that the one state solution has gained greater profile in recent years. Also people are becoming increasingly pro Palestinian, thanks to the heroic efforts of people like Galloway and Viva Palestina etc. A poll on the BBc showed 57% in favour of the Palestinians, this is remarkable given the propaganda of the corporate media. If we can cut through their bullshit on this subject we can do it on others.
There are reasons to be cheerful comrades, despite the awful events unfolding before our eyes.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
That poll figure is quite remarkable, given the wall-to-wall Zionism of the mainstream media, certainly in Western countries.
Omar on said:
andy newman,
Not sure how the Arab oil shipments are especially relevant.The hardships faced by Palestinians are purely the result of Israel. What I was thinking of is Western (and non-Western, for that matter) countries that allow Israeli products in and businesses to operate .Until Israel ceases it’s military actions and halts settlement activity , it’s products cannot be sold and it’s businesses not allowed to trade within a given country’s borders.
One other argument that can be made, though it isn’t without risk, is that Israeli intransigence vis. the Palestinians is posing an existential risk to people outside of Israel by fuelling Islamist terrorism and the additional expense that putting countermeasures in place is costing these countries, both monetarily and in terms of social disorder.It might also be advantageous to remind politicians that the demographics of this and other European countries contains a ,not insignificant, Muslim population who are more likely to look favourably upon parties that take a tough stand on Israel. We must use whatever methods are available to help try and bring these horrors to an end.
Andy Newman on said:
Interesting article here from the Israeli magazine, Challenge, from 2011, explaining how Netanyahu managed to co-op the social protest movement:
http://www.challenge-mag.com/en/article__314/social-protest_leaders_strengthen_netanyahu
Jellytot on said:
@53Give me the warm glow of Toytown over dreary nihilism any day of the week.
I’d prefer the word “realism”. When you can be attacked at will your position does seem hopeless.
I’m not opposed to the rest of your #53 but there is only one country’s views and opinions that Israel truly cares about and that nation is (excepting the occasional chastisement) utterly stentorian in its support. I don’t see any meaningful strategy that the Palestinian political leadership can follow at present. The other side seems to hold all the cards and gnashing of teeth won’t change that.
Omar on said:
Tony, my long-winded, 4-tins-of-Strongbow response to Andy at #52 seems to have gotten caught in the spam filter.
SA on said:
People are not thick, year in year out they hear and see murders of men, women and children and land theft and despite the MSM they see through the bullshit and sympathise with the victims.
In that respect 57% supporting the Palestinians does not suprise me. I would expect this support to continue to grow.
One thing is for sure a properly organised and publicised boycott would get loads of support faster than you could say Dame Shirley Porter.
stuart on said:
Solidarity with Gaza, from Syria..
http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/we-are-and-always-be-one-syria-and-palestine/
Zhou Enlai on said:
@61 But surely the government of Syria has shown more support for Palestine and the Palestinians than all the backers of the Syrian rebels – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France, Britain, United States of America, (Israel?), NATO in general?
You can’t equate the two situations in any way. Its a completely false and contradictory analogy, however romantic the sentiments are
stuart on said:
Zhou Enlai,
The situation is more complicated than you make out. So for example Hamas has aligned itself closer to Qatar and away from Syria. But the problem remains that external ‘support’ from any Arab government does not make resistance to Zionism stronger in the long run. It is easier for those of us on the left to support Palestinian resistance to Zionist repression if we are clear about opposing the repression meted out by the Syrian state.
Vanya on said:
#60 -62 Both sides to the conflict in Syria will be able to come up with evidence of their support for the Palestinians.
Conflating the two issues just confuses matters, as does over simplifying and pretifying the history of the relationship between the Palestinian cause and the Ba’athist regime.
There has been a historic failure by all the regimes in the region to act in the best interests of the Palestinians, which has manifested itself in varying ways and degrees.
It will be interesting to see how much has now changed in terms of anything the new Egyptian government is able to achieve.
#62 Why? If it is right to oppose Assad it’s right to oppose Assad. If not it’s not. Whatever position you take there will be people you support who don’t agree with you.
In Syria the issue is that there is a country where some people are fighting to change the government of their state, while others are fighting to preserve it. A new government may be better or worse than the current one. One thing that is clear is that it would be far better if it could be resolved without the ongoing slaughter.
The Palestinians are fighting for the right to have a state at all.
stuart on said:
Vanya,
Not sure that your points are very helpful. People disagree over Assad, true. And they disagree over Israel/Palestine as well. The Syrian conflict is best ‘resolved’ peacefully, true. The Israel/Palestinian conflict also.
I would pose it like this. The Israeli and Syrian capitalist states are failing to deliver justice to many of those affected by their actions. But you seem to be saying that the Palestinians are fighting for ‘a state’ whereas the Syrians are lucky enough to have one. Kind of true but I don’t think it takes us very far.
Jellytot on said:
You’re not still flogging that dead horse, are you ‘stuart’?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/20/uk-syrian-opposition-sole-legitimate-representative-people
From the article:
“Britain is to “urgently deploy” a stabilisation response team to help the coalition meet people’s basic needs in opposition-held areas, he (Hauge) said. The team will recommend areas for further UK assistance. The new package of UK support is worth around £2m in immediate commitments which could be expanded considerably in the coming months.”
stuart on said:
Jellytot,
But I don’t think the left should withdraw support for a resistance force simply because western imperialism tries to gain influence. In the same way, we support Palestinian resistance to Zionism even though Palestinian groups have been backed by dubious benefactors.
We should be absolutely clear. We are opposed to western imperialism’s attempts to pursue their agendas through whatever guise. But we support resistance to Assad in the same way that we support resiatance to Zionism. In this we are consistent.
That is not to say that we don’t need to be flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances. So Khomeni was an enemy of the left, however we had to support Iran against Iraq in the latter stages of the Iran/Iraq war- and then we had to support Iraq against the US led coalition (which included Syria led by Assad senior) in 1991.
But we do not accept that you can’t oppose local despots unless you support western imperialism.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
A lot of the forces behind the “Free Syria Army” – USA/NATO – are the same forces that keep the Zionist entity going and giving it both the military/financial hardware and diplomatic cover that allow it to bomb Gaza and murder Palestinians. Its Arab sponsors – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the current Libyan government, placed in office by NATO bombing – are also the most pro-Western part of the Arab world, and have done nothing against Zionist attacks on Palestinians, other than issue statements.
To square this particular circle, Cliffites try to make imperialism disappear by denying its relevance. An article in the World Socialist Website on September 29 noted an attempt to do so on the ISO website by a certain Yusef Khalil:
“To further dismiss any concern over imperialist designs on Syria, Khalil cites an article by the ‘Syrian Marxist’ Salamah Kailah — published in Al Hayat, the mouthpiece of the Saudi monarchy. Kailah advances the unique argument that because the US is ‘in a period of deep structural economic crisis,’ and because its hegemonic position is being challenged, particularly by China, it can no longer engage in militarist aggression abroad.
What a profound ‘Marxist’ insight! Deep economic crisis and the rise of new global powers preclude war. Is that what the 20th century taught him?”
Noah on said:
Did it escape you that Hilary Clinton is able to dismiss the leadership of the Syrian opposition and insist that another leadership be appointed?
Of course, the salaries of FSA fighters are not actually paid by NATO. They are paid by Saudi Arabia.
Er, who is this ‘we’, exactly?
CJB on said:
Me and Stuart…
stuart on said:
Mark V(67),Noah (68),
I do actually agree with much of what you say, my basic contention is that you end up being too dismissive of resistance and therefore too willing to rally around the Assad dictatorship. This makes it harder to present a consistent case when it comes to supporting the Palestinians.
There are of course contradictions so therefore ‘we’, the socialists or the left, those that support the Palestinians etc, should be very careful in formulating our positions- and be prepared to modify them if and when the balance of forces shift.
Without question we should oppose western imperialism (of which Israeli repression is an extension), whether in the form of full scale intervention or by attempts to create puppet leaderships that become dependent on western support. I think that in the case of Syria, Assad was doing much of what the west wanted, however the western governments are looking to benefit from his possible demise. We should oppose their attempts to do so.
So how do we deal with the contradiction, the desire to oppose both dictatorship and repression and also oppose western imperialism? Some historical examples from WW1 are useful. Lenin supported Polish nationalism and Irish nationalism. However, when Polish nationalists effectively became puppets of German imperialism he opposed Polish nationalism. But even though Irish nationalists sought help from German imperialism he still supported Irish nationalism as, in this case, they were not acting as puppets.
A more recent example. It was correct to support the struggle of Albanian speakers in Kosovo against Serb repression. However, when the leadership of that struggle became a front for NATO in the late 1990s, the left had to make opposition to western military intervention its main priority.
I think in the case of Syria we should be guided by two important principles. We should not refuse to support resistance against Assad simply because within the resistance there are very dodgy elements. And we should not refuse to criticise the resistance simply because Assad is a ruthless dictator.
I think that US imperialism has been badly wounded over recent years and I do not therefore think that it acts from a position of overwhelming strength. I believe the US is very worried about its inability to control the situation on the ground. However, the US is more than capable of intervening rather like a wounded beast would lash out, its economic decline in some ways increases this possibility. It would be silly to ignore this potential.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
All this talk of “despots” and “dictators” is so much liberalism, reminiscent of the Guardian milieu in which so much of the left is comfortable. Lenin and Trotsky didn’t exactly shill for “multi-party” bourgeois democracy either, did they? I am wondering at what point the likes of the SWP will ditch any formal commitment to Leninism? I suspect that this is not far off. (It is worth noting in parentheses that many of the backers of the “Free Syria Army” do not hold elections in their own countries. Also, Sunni bigots of the kind well represented in the “opposition” and its many non-Syrian backers actually think democracy is un-Islamic.)
Another thing occurs to me: years ago, a certain ex-agent by the name of David Shayler claimed that MI6 carried out an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Gaddafi in 1996. Shayler is a strange character but I don’t believe this particular claim, which is quite plausible, was ever denied. Fast forward to 2011 and much of the left exulted over Gaddafi’s death (which had many Western intelligence fingerprints, not least the claim by a high-ranking Libyan official who had defected to the “opposition” that a French intelligence agent actually pulled the trigger). Of course, the Americans tried to kill Gaddafi a decade before, and at least one French intelligence assassination plot was reported to have occurred earlier. So in other words, much of the left cheered on the accomplishment of an MI6/CIA/French intelligence objective.
What does this tell us about the international politics of the Western left, or at least a good portion of it? What strings are being pulled, and who are the puppetmasters?
Andy Newman on said:
how has that worked out? A Narco-state that has terrorised the non-Albanian population, and carried out pogroms on the Gypsies.
I hardly think that police action by the Serb authorities to oppose a drug trade funded terror campaign of ethnic cleansing against non-Albanians by the fascists of the KLA is best described as “Serb repression”
Noah on said:
I can’t quite work that out. How does supporting the proxy of Western imperialism in one conflict make you more ‘consistent’ when opposing the Western proxy in another (not unrelated) conflict?
BTW your constant use of ‘resistance’ to describe the armed opposition to the Syrian state, and ‘dictatorship’ to describe the Syrian government, are rather transparent weasel words.
Obviously, proxies / clients etc have their own interests, agendas, contradictions etc; and there is the additional complication of the roles of the Saudi and Qatari monarchies + Turkey, plus the foreign fighters who have arrived in Syria.
Without doubt there are genuine grievances (apart from sectarian ones) on the part of (most of) those Syrians who support the FSA etc. But what evidence or analysis do you have that indicates that working class people & poor farmers etc would be better off or stronger after the overthrow of the Syrian government & its replacement with the bunch who have just been ‘recognised’ by France, the UK and the EU?
Western-backed regime change does not exactly have a good record in that respect, Stuart.
stuart on said:
Mark (71),
I agree that the term ‘democracy’ can be conveniently used by western imperialism as a means of pursuing its own agenda- however surely we should support it in principle over dictatorship, whilst rejecting the imperialist hypocrisy.
I think Lenin offers a useful guide and not one that should be discarded. Notably, his ability make shifts in position as the circumstances demanded. That’s an approach I favour here.
I think you need to distinguish between the Gaddafi pre-2003 and that post-2003. The latter Gaddafi had thrown in his lot with western imperialism. I think Lenin would have seen that. The west did not intiate the Libyan uprising, however they took the opportunity to buy into the Arab Spring. It was correct to oppose their attempt to do so.
Andy (72),
You make some points that I agree with. However, it was the case that Alabanian speakers were denied rights in the constitutional settlement post-1945. Instead of gaining republic status, Kosovo was under Serb domination. Attempts to redress this in 1974 were reversed by Milosevic as he rose to power on a nationalist wave in 1989. Albanian speakers could be seen in the same light as Catholics in Northern Ireland.
Noah (73),
As I’ve said over and over, I do not support western proxies. I don’t think it’s an all or nothing situation. I actually said…
‘We should not refuse to support resistance against Assad simply because within the resistance there are very dodgy elements. And we should not refuse to criticise the resistance simply because Assad is a ruthless dictator’.
As to whether or not workers and peasants would be ‘better off’, I would remind you that the revolutionary process against Assad was initiated by Syrian domestic forces, it was not started from outside. We are not talking about an invasion of Iraq as in 2003 here. Of course, external forces will try to bolster their position in the region, that is unfortunately inevitable, and so we should oppose all such interventions not least because it compromises the revolutionary process.
Vanya on said:
Stuart- you say of democracy,
‘…we should support it in principle over dictatorship… ‘
You talk of democracy and dictatorship with no reference to class, while going on to skirt around the question of whether the workers and poor peasants of Syria would be better off if the rebellion you support was successful.
Personally the only hard and fast position I have is opposition to imperialist intervention. I’m not at all convinced that in and of itself the downfall of the Ba’athist regime at the hands of Syrian people would be a bad thing and any negotiated end to the bloodshed would almost certainly require that Assad was no longer in power.
And whether or not it is overthrown will depend not one jot on my opinion in any event.
But you claim affiliation to a party that considers itself to be Marxist and in the tradition of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, (whose legacy I am personally sceptical about btw).
I simply fail to see how you can chuck words like democracy, dictatorship and resistance around with no reference to class content or class interests.
Is it just that you support anyone who mobilises to overthrow their government as a matter of principle?
stuart on said:
Vanya,
You hold one position, that of opposition to western intervention. Fair enough. But there is a revolutionary process going on whether you like it or not. And it is wrong in my opinion to maintain some kind of distant neutrality over heroic attempts to fight for greater democracy across the region.
For me, the Syrian state represents the interests of Syrian capitalism, that would be how a Marxist understands it. Workers are exploited under such a system. Workers have a greater chance in asserting their interests more successfully should democratic rights be gained. Of course, we have no way of knowing how things will turn out. How things turn out will depend on tactics, leadership etc. And we may end up with some kind of reordering of capitalist interests, a system no less exploititive.
But revolutions will occur whether we like it or not. I repeat, Syria is a capitalist state and a dictatorship. As socialists we should support greater democracy for workers- not simply shrug our shoulders in a non interested manner.
Noah on said:
Which is avoiding the question. Hardly surprising given the record of imperialist-backed regime change.
So, one can presumably take it that whether or not the working class & poor farmers etc would be better off and / or stronger under a NATO / Gulf monarchy-backed post-Assad regime has no bearing on your enthusiasm for such an outcome.
stuart on said:
But the problem with your position is that is over deterministic. You seem to have decided in advance the fate of the Syrian masses. My position allowed for flexibility. I wrote…
‘We should not refuse to support resistance against Assad simply because within the resistance there are very dodgy elements. And we should not refuse to criticise the resistance simply because Assad is a ruthless dictator’.’
So in the event of your scenario, my second sentence can be invoked..
‘And we should not refuse to criticise the resistance simply because Assad is a ruthless dictator’.
I think the difference in approach here is far from trivial. IMO your deterministic position effectively tells of a lot people, regardless of their problems, that they cannot fight back against their regime because of the geopolitical situation. So how, in this scenario, are workers able to struggle against their own alienation? As I say, the uprising in Syria was not started by western agents. It was what socialists should consider, a legitimate rising for progressive objectives. But by invoking geopolitics in the way that you do, you regard such actions as illegitimate.
Zaid on said:
Is this for real?
Zaid on said:
Yes, it’s a very flimsy kind of Marxism that so effortlessly and unashamedly adopts the vocabulary of the world-view that the bourgeoisie would have us accept.
jack ford on said:
The Assad regime agreed to reforms under the pressure of the Arab Spring. A new constitution was voted through by referedum and multi party parliamentary elections were held. I don’t believe the civil war was necessary to achieve democratic reform in Syria and it is certain that Western powers along with Saudi and Qatari sponsored jihadists are trying to hijack the Syrian revolution for their own ends. The reason in my view for the desire to force regime chance in Damascus is because Syria is one of the few Arab countries that gives material help to Hizbollah. The USraelians are trying to break the Iranian-Syrian-Hizbollah Axis of Resistance to the Zionist tyranny.
stuart on said:
zaid (79),
What I said was….
‘It was correct to support the struggle of Albanian speakers in Kosovo against Serb repression. However, when the leadership of that struggle became a front for NATO in the late 1990s, the left had to make opposition to western military intervention its main priority.’
If you deny Serb repression against Albanian speakers you are just plain wrong. The Albanian speakers suffered in not disimilar ways to the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq. But the key point here is that US imperialism will ‘sympathise’ with the plight of the oppressed when it suits them to do so. So when Saddam was an ally of the US the plight of Kurds in Iraq was ignored, when Milosevic was working with the US the plight of Albanian speakers was ignored. But when Saddam was no longer a reliable ally the US sought an alliance with the Kurds whilst it regarded Kurds in Turkey as ‘terrorists’. But of course that does not mean that Kurds in Iraq were never oppressed or that Saddam was an ‘anti-imperialist’. And it doesn’t mean either that Albanian speakers were not oppressed and that Milosevic should be seen by the left as some kind of progressive. It does mean that the left should oppose US intervention in Iraq and the Balkans- the wider imperialist agenda is the greater evil.
jack ford (81),
I think your argument is quite similar to the Serb question immediately above. There is IMO an over valuation of this ‘Axis of Resistance’. Syria is not an anti-imperialist state, history has shown how Syria will quite happily work alongside US imperialism, Syria is looking above all else to bolster its position in the Middle East. But by regarding Syria in the way that you do, by ascribing to it anti-imperialist qualities, you end up being an apologist for the repression against those looking to struggle against Assad. You repeat the propaganda of Assad, those fighting are for you are foreign backed terrorists. But in reality that is only one element within a far more complex picture.
For me, the US will attack what it regards as ‘rogue’ states whenever it deems it as in its interests to do so. And when that happens, either directly or thorough proxies, we oppose it. But not because the state being attacked is ‘anti-imperialist’. By defining it in this way, our overall analysis of complex situation suffers. And we end up opposing the right of the masses across the region to struggle against their oppressors.
Vanya on said:
#82 Do you challenge the following:?
1) Hizbollah is the only Arab army ever to defeat the IDF.
2) Hizbollah was able to do so to a large degree because of support from Syria.
3) Both Syria and Hizbollah are allied to Iran.
4) Iran is currently the target of threatened military attack from Israel with serious support in the US.
Surely the support of imperialism for the demise of the current regime in Syria is directly connected to and motivated by the above factors.
I am aware as anyine else of the sever limitations of the Syrian Ba-athist regime in terms of its relations both with imperialism and the Palestinians. And its repressive nature.
And obviously the situation is complex (reality usually is).
You say that people can be fighters for justice and then become proxies for imperialism who you will oppose if a ‘rogue state’ is attacked.
But how do you determine whether / when such a transformation has taken place?
The moment they are engaged in common battle alongside imperialist forces? The moment they declare common political goals with imperialism?
Noah on said:
Er, no. Your position allows for a cop-out. I’ve put the issue to you twice as to whether you have any evidence or analysis that would indicate that working class and poor people in Syria will be any better off or stronger after regime change is achieved- and it’s now perfectly clear that you have none.
Given that the overthrow of the Syrian state would most likely (unless you believe that the Gulf monarchies & NATO countries are all irrationally wasting their money & diplomatic efforts) worsen the regional / global strategic situation, and also that you can’t even make an attempt at claiming that it would make poor & working class people better off, I can’t see what on Earth there is to like about your position.
Vanya on said:
#83 And a further point- what has the ‘right’ of people to fight against oppression have to do with any of this?
If Syrian people feel oppressed and decide to fight their oppression, they will fight, not ask their oppressor for permission to do so. And imperialism isn’t denying them the right, far from it.
And the onlookers like yourselves and me on the British left are hardly in a position to deny or grant that right. An understanding of your place in the world is quite important imo.
What is clear is that as long as the regime is prepared to resist the rebellion and the rebels are prepared to carry on fighting, the bloodshed will continue.
And while that’s going on, who exactly is benefiting?
jack ford on said:
Obviously I support democratic revolution in Syria and I have no love for the Assad regime which was involved in rendition. However it is a fact that the Assad regime depended for its legitimacy on its claim to be a supporter of the Arab nationalist cause and it hosted Hamas and gave vital help to Hizbollah despite enormous pressure from the US. Some of the rebels are of course democrats and Syrian patriots but others are extremely nasty far right Al Qaeda types working for the Empire whether they know it or not. If Syria falls into the US-Qatari camp this will be an enormous victory for Israeli. It won’t make it impossible for Hizbollah to receive materiel via Syria but it will make it much more difficult.
There is also the fact that many religious minorities such as Christians and Alawites are terrified of what might happen to them if the jihadist Salafist types take over and I don’t blame them. My view is that Assad in the short term could be the lesser evil. Best case scenario would be a peace agreement that ended the civil war and enabled the government to restore law and order followed by a transition to democracy. If part of such a deal means allowing Assad to escape to Russia say so be it.
I don’t believe the Western powers have any serious concern for the welfare of Syrians and are quite preprared to keep the war in Syria going indefinitely. There’s also the danger that it could spill over into Lebanon.
jack ford on said:
On the Serb Kosovo issue yes it’s true that Albanians were discriminated against under Milosevic and that atrocities were committed against Kosovans by the Serb army in 1999. However that conflict was started by the KLA which was listed by the US as a terrorist organisation until it suited them to back the KLA in 1999. The KLA deliberately committed atrocities against Kosovan Serbs in order to provoke the Milosevic government into brutalising the Kosovan population hoping that the Western media would then call for humanitarian intevention and NATO would win their war for them which is what happened. Whereupon the KLA fascists started a pogrom against Serbs and Gypsies in Kosovo and NATO did nothing effective to stop them even though NATO established a huge military base in Kosovo, Camp Bondsteel.
In theory the 1999 war was fought in order to prevent ethnic cleansing not for Kosovan independence. Once the Milosevic regime was toppled via a US colour revolution there was no legitimate reason to recognise Kosovo as an independent state. What should have happened would have been to restore Kosovan autonomy within Serbia. The abolition of Kosovan autonomy by Milisovic was what originally triggered the crisis.
Kosovo is emotionally of huge significance to the Serb natiuon because it’s the site of their battle against the Turks, the Field of the Blackbirds. They will never abandon their claim to sovereignty over it but Belgrade is quite willing to give Kosovo enough autonomy that Kosovo would be entirely self governing. However the Western powers recognised Kosovan independence. The statelet is run by total gangster and mafia thugs and is a major source of heroin imports into Europe. It’s a nasty little narco state. All in the name of human rights of course.
That’s where a naive support of Western humanitarian interventions gets you.
I predicted at the time when the West recognised Kosovan independence that this was not only illegal in terms of international law but was setting a very dangerous precedent that would be used by others. When Putin carved up Georgia by recognising Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence he proved my point. The Russians almost certainly would never have done that if NATO hadn’t set up independent Kosovo.
Incidentally the humiliation of Russia by NATO assault on their ally Serbia in 1999 may well have played a key role in helping Putin come to power.
stuart on said:
jack ford,
Where you say …
‘That’s where a naive support of Western humanitarian interventions gets you’….. I would agree with you. I do not support western intervention.
The Syrian situaton clearly contains a lot of unknowns, the US will be very worried at its inability to predict and control things. Of course we should oppose western imperialism’s attempts to steer events in its favoured direction.
stuart on said:
Vanya,
There should of course be opposition to western intervention from the outset. I’ve tried to make that clear on many occasions, I don’t think I differ in that respect from the other contributors. Where I differ is in my opposition to Assad, I don’t see Syria as anti-imperialist and so I’m more likely to be sympathetic to an anti-Assad uprising (this does not mean that I would support western backed military action even if it ostensibly supports the uprising. This might seem like a contradiction but then the situation is contradictory, capitalism is a ‘total’ system with conflicting dynamics, our political response should reflect this).
The reason for the success of Hizbollah would be that it isn’t a government. Israel has won wars quite easily against Arab states when the Arabs have conducted their wars in top-down fashion. Hizbollah’s guerilla tactics were far more successful when it came to fighting the IDF. In that respect, dependence on Arab regimes can be a liability in that the politics of the regimes reflects their position within wider Middle East set-up and this can hold back groups such as Hizbollah, making them less radical. Hizbollah has received support from regimes that we would consider conservative. Moreover Syria has a poor track record over the years, Syria has gone along with the US and has found itself fighting against Palestinians and even against Hizbollah.
stuart on said:
Noah,
I am in no position to say whether the workers and the poor will be better off, how can I when there are so many factors? But what I can say is that under the increasingly neo-liberal Syrian dictatorship, the workers and poor would suffer and that not taking action against the regime would ensure the continuation of such suffering. Against that background, it is correct to support action against the regime for democratic rights as this has greater potential for improving the lives of the masses than doing nothing.
Vanya on said:
Stuart if you look again at my last two comments and your response, you will surely realise that you have avoided and failed to address the substantive question I put to you. When people do that in politics it’s either because (a) they don’t have an answer or they (b) they don’t like the answer because it doesn’t suit their theory.
One other question- you say that Syria isn’t an ‘anti-imperialist state’ (whatever that is)- can you name any states that are?
Noah on said:
@ Stuart. As far as democratic rights are concerned, as has been pointed out the Syrian government has already introduced democratic reforms and has held multi-party elections.
BTW, so far as I can work out your position, you seem to entertain some fantasy that maybe- just maybe- the result of Western-backed regime change in Syria could be the rolling back of pro-market capitalist reforms. If so, that’s utterly ludicrous.
stuart on said:
Vanya,
I think that by seeing the Assad regime as anti-imperialist you end up regarding a rebellion against it as wrong from a geopolitical point of view, at least that is the danger. In practice that can mean opposing the ‘right’ to rebel from an apparently left position.
In the capitalist world today, I do not see states as anti-imperialist as such. What we have is many different states jostling for infuence in the global pecking order. In practice that means that states will do deals with US imperialism, do favours for it, make compromises with it but, such is the nature of global capitalism, occasionally find themselves in opposition to US imperialism. I think that’s the best way of understanding the situation.
stuart on said:
Noah,
I think the problem for the Assad regime was that brutal force was used against people agitating for democratic reforms. After the use of such repressive force the demand became ‘down with the regime’, the rebellion took on a necessarily stronger momentum.
I certainly do not have fantasy about Western backed regime change bringing material benefits to the masses. But I must remind you that under Assad, Syria was becoming increasingly neo-liberal, the effect of which would have been to increase social tension. For me, the problem with those on the left that I would see as too protective of Assad, is that there seems to be an almost automatic assumption that the Syrian masses would happily tolerate some kind of pro-US capitalism and pro-US and Israeli imperialism, in that they can be so easily manipulated by external forces. The outcome is in reality far less certain. A US oriented economy would be unlikely to meet the aspirations of petit-bourgeoisie and workers and so militancy would never be far below the surface. And for a nation of people that have, since 1967, had a part of their territory occupied by Israel, a pro-western imperialist mentality will be very hard to achieve. As I say, the situation is very uncertain and that worries the US.
Kevin Ovenden on said:
Stuart – may I say that I don’t agree with either all of what you have to say or the conclusions that tend to flow from it. I think I also don’t agree with the underlying analysis.
However, you make significant points I do agree with. You put them and the whole case in a way that can advance discussion here. I am really grateful for your intervention. It would be an a step forward if everyone took the situation in Syria and the lesser considerations of the British left as seriously.
To create yet another line of anathematisation over this question would be reckless. You put your point, but you don’t do that. I welcome that – it really does help the debate.