21st Centuary Socialism

Thanks for publishing thae interview with Hasan Nasrallah. What suprised me, frankly, was how politically sophisticated he is. Although he didn't put it in quite this way, he seemed to be suggesting that anti-imperialism is the issue around which everyone can unite, and that religion is secondary to that. If so, this indeed a positive development. I looked at the website of the Lebanese Communist Party (which is a powerful force in Lebanon) and they appeared to have a very good relationship with Hezbollah, and have contributed fighters to the war effort against Israel.

Another thing that struck me about Nasallah's position on Iraq was how similar it is (or was) to some of the left critiques of Saddam Hussein. Essentially, Nasrallah is arguing that Saddam was a pawn of US imperialism, or at least played into their hands at every opportunity. How much of Nasrallah's analysis is influenced by his Shia background and relationship with Iran I don't know (Saddam is a secular Sunni who fought Shia Iran in the 80's), but it's a very interesting point he makes nonetheless.

Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah is correct in identifying sectarian manipulation as an important tactic of US imperialism in the Middle East. This point is even more important, emanating from an Islamist cleric. After all, religious and ethnic discord in Iraq has been fermented into a macabre art by the American occupation.

The first act of the US occupation in 2003 was to abolish the entire Iraqi army, police force and civil service. The US then went on to appoint an emasculated governing council based purely on religious and sectarian representation (divided into Sunni, Shia, Kurd and Christian clerics and sectarian politicians). In the absence secure borders or any semblance of law and order, the US appointed Iraqi administration was completely under the mercy and protection of the US army.

The US insured that a future elected Iraqi government will be held hostage to US military protection for the foreseeable future; and under the patronage of communal religious forces.

The mass sackings of the Sunni minority dominated security and civil apparatus, had also helped to ignite the sectarian bloodbath that is engulfing Iraq at the moment. After losing their jobs and privileges, the Sunni feudal tribesmen and Sunni urban upper class have given their overwhelming support to the Sunni insurgency, (some prominent resistance leaders are high ranking former Iraqi security officers).

Many thousands of Shia civilians have been brutally murdered by Sunni insurgents since April 2003. With the US occupation totally incapable of providing protection for Iraqi civilians, the majority Shia community has resorted to its own sectarian militias; such as the Mehdi Army and the Iranian backed Badar Brigades, in order to defend its self from the indiscriminate terrorist onslaught. This has recently led to tit for tat sectarian killings by both sides. Shia sectarian death-squads, protected by powerful ministers in the Iraqi cabinet troll Sunni neighborhoods to kill and terrorize the local population.

Thus, US imperialism is able to maintain it’s occupation of Iraq and plunder it’s oil riches through civil war and good old colonial divide and conquer.
Regards
Uri

In quite properly pointing out how the U.S. occupation has fomented sectarian strife in Iraq, I suspect you may have done the resistance a disservice. As even this report from the BBC shows, [news.bbc.co.uk] the vast majority of attacks continue to be on American and British forces. To simply state "many thousands of Shia cilivians have been brutally murdered by Sunni insurgents" is, with respect, a gross oversimplification both of the nature of the resistance struggle and the complex elements within it. Besides the problematic nature of the term "insurgent," saying the resistance is supported by "Sunni feudal tribesmen and Sunni urban upper class" fails to take into account that it's supported by a hell of a lot of other people, too - according to opinion polls, this support transcends communal boundaries. Indeed, the resistance is made up of many disparate organizations and elements, only a minority of whom one could characterize as sectarian. Sectarian killings linked to the resistance are in many instances provocations by Occupation elements or stalking horses of Zarqawi's ilk, and are an attempt to blunt the onslaught of Iraqi fighters on coalition forces.

Progressive and democractic forces should be lending their political and moral support to the resistance in Iraq, rather than buying into Coalition scenarios. It is the Iraqi resistance, more than anything else, that has helped forestall the Imperialist agenda elsewhere in the Middle East and rest of the world, and we owe them a large debt of gratitude. Besides, when the inevitable imperialist attack on Iran comes, and the Iraqi Shia explode in open revolt against the Occupation, I suspect such questions will become moot.

Re: Nassaralla: Don’t you find parts of the interview strikingly fantastic? And if so don’t it make you suspect the whole thing might be all a mere fake?

Now let alone the introduction, that reads like a synopsis for an American thriller were the courageous heroes (occasionally white) gets to meet the beast...

Just look, for example, at the first paragraph Where Nasaralla is allegedly stating that:

· “We (the Hezbollah) are acting consciously we are not firing rockets at civilians”

· “We (the Hezbollah) are firing rockets under control on the locations we identify before are firing rockets at had been located before.”

· “They (Israel) are deliberately driving Israeli Arabs to the border they are presenting them as targets to us”

Well any one knows those saying are not true.

Those sayings seems to be a complete contrast to other parts of the interview were Nasralla is allegedly setting an articulated political analysis, The same one that Jason and Uri refers to at that forum.

Now looking at the interview again, can one still believe ever took place?

The notion that the interview was a forgery was first advanced by Asad Abukhalil on his Angry Arab website. The reasons he gave for such a position I found somewhat unconvincing at the time, and the vigorous international debate on the matter which followed has, I think, put the notion to rest. Indeed, Nasrullah has had ample opportunity to disavow the interview if he found anything objectionable in it; he has not.

As for the quite extraordinary statement that "any knows those sayings are not true," I commend to you the eyewitness account of Jonathan Cook in Nazareth, at [www.counterpunch.org] .

Shit!

Hussain Rahhal, Hezbollah's press liaison, has issued a written statement:

"Our secretary general Nasrallah has not given any interviews to any Turkish or other non-Lebanese journalist during the month of August. In the face of this imaginary interview that is untruthful, and hence does damage to journalism, credibility and objectivity, Hezbollah reserves its right to take legal action against those who have published it."

[www.counterpunch.com]

Crap!

Dear Taghad -

What do you mean by "Crap" (Do excuse the un ladylike term. I am quoting).

You cannot still believe the interview is real? Can you?

As to the question “ Is Israel Using Arab Villages as Human Shields?” Well, you cannot believe that the answer to that question is really on the positive side? Can you?

Anyone can see that “tactic” is neither wise nor useful. And furthermore the counter punch Article you linked to does not refer to Nassralla at all.

Well I guess we had enough of that. Please Do try answering my thread about music. The Outcomes can only be lovely. Would you please try?

Ps- You missed the word “one” quoting me but I forgive you.

The expletives I used were an expression of embarrassment and remorse. I have, on the other hand, been enjoying the music links you provided all evening. Many of the songs take me back to my misspent youth.

TAGHAD

LOVELY !

I AM GLAD YOU ENJOYED THE MUSIC. AS I SAID; IT IS MUSIC THAT MAKES ONE SHIVERS.

LETS TEAM UP AND LOOK FOR SOME MORE LINKS OF THE SAME SORT - THE "MAKES SHIVER" KIND - WE, AND ALL THE REST OF THE READERS OF THAT LOVELY AND FRESH SITE, DESERVE THE JOY.

Dear Tadhg

Genuine solidarity with the Iraqi people in their struggle to end the occupation has to emanate from an honest assesment of the socio-economic and political situation in that country.

The violence taking place in Iraq today can only be described as a civil war and not as a national liberation war. While many Iraqis do politically campaign for the end of the Anglo-American occupation, military activities by the majority of Iraqi armed factions are directed against the Sunni and Shia communities. Factional violence is also directed against trade union leaders and non sectarian political and civic organisations, who have been targeted and murdered in droves since 2003.

One only has to look at the casualty figures of Iraqi morgues (close to 2000 murdered Iraqis a month), to realise that British and American casualties are a tiny percentage of the victims.

I have no doubt that the elected Shia coalition in the Green Zone still enjoys overwhelming support of the Iraqi Shia (a community which constitutes about 60% of the Iraqi population). I have also no doubts that the 2 main Kurdish nationalist movements in the north do enjoy majority support. Both the Kurdish and Shia parties, while cooperating with the Americans, are also struggling to seize state power and control as much territory as possible, before the Aglo-American forces withdraw to a number of military bases.

What you identify as “the resistance” is hundreds of Jihadi Islamists, Sunni tribal fighters, Arab nationalist, Sunni former Baath Party security apparatus personnel and foreign Jihadis. Put together, all these social forces have just under 15% support in the country. But their violent bombing and assassinations against the majority Shia and Kurdish communities has helped to prolong the tactical alliance between the majority Iraqi political parties and the Americans.

Secular and non sectarian political forces, such as the Iraqi labour movement, progressive Arab nationalists and democratic Iraqi patriots are all sadly in the minority at the moment. This secular minority is at the receiving end of unrelenting violence, perpetrated by both Sunni and Shia Islamists.

US imperialism will be defeated in Iraq when ever the non sectarian patriotic forces begin to recover politically and begin to expose the current sectarian leadership as a tool in the hands of the Empire.

Uri & Tadhg - some thoughts for both of you:-

1) US tactics involve encouraging sectarian division; but that does not mean that the USA is in full control of the processes which they have helped to unleash.

2) People are mobilised on sectarian lines, and vote for sectarian parties which vie for power under the US occupation regime, but that does not mean that they do not oppose the occupation. See:

[www.umich.edu]

It is notable that even the majority of Kurds are against US occupation now.

3) As well as the horrible sectarian massacres, there are daily and deadly attacks on US & British forces.

4) The outcome of the US / British invasion and occupation has had problematic results, militarily and politically, for the imperialist forces.

Interesting news & a comment on it:


[www.telegraph.co.uk]


[leninology.blogspot.com]

Also, Uri - you didn't deal with Tadhg's point that the majority of armed actions in Iraq are attacks on the 'coalition' forces, even though most of the deaths are civilian. The BBC report on:

[news.bbc.co.uk]

supports this assertion.

Ahab

Sunni Islamist suicide attacks against Shia or Kurdish targets are a daily routine in Iraq. Some of the attacks target the Iraqi police, political parties and civic organisations. However, the great majority of daily bombings are indiscriminate and target civilians on sectarian basis.

Is futile to try and research how many Sunni militants also target US soldiers, because I’m sure every Sunni Islamist would probably try to attack an American, if given half a chance. However, their main beef with the Americans is that US imperialism is placing the Shia and Kurds in charge of Iraq. If the US will ever change sectarian side, I’m convinced that many Sunni tribesmen and sectarian Islamists will collaborate with the US. The Sunni Islamic Party has already changed its position re immediate US withdrawal. Now they are calling for an “orderly withdrawal” with US guarantees for the Sunni minority.

It is also difficult to distinguish between Sunni guerrilla attacks against the Shia/Kurdish authorities as opposed to attacks against the Anglo-American forces for the following reasons:- The newly founded “Iraqi national army” and security forces are embedded with US special forces and Shia/Kurdish political party militias (including Iranian government sponsored Baadar Brigades, covert Iranian Revolutionary Guards contingents, The Shia Mehdi Army, The Kurdish Peshmerga fighters belonging to 4 Kurdish political parties as well as other less prominent Iraqi political factions).

Thus, even Sunni guerrilla fighting with the Iraqi security forces (who now always join the Americans in “anti insurgency” operations) are of sectarian nature.
The situation is different in the British occupied south, when it comes to Shia militias clashing with each other. The British have allied themselves with pro Iranian Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The British Army generally comes on the side SCIRI against the Mehdi Army. SCIRI now controls the Southern cities, including Basra, while British soldiers drive around the place looking as if they are in charge.
Regards
Uri

I don't think it at all necessary to make too nice a distinction between attacks on the occupiers on the other hand, and on their collaborators are on the other. Historically, most resistance movements have pursued similar strategies, and for eminently sound reasons.

I am curious about the "non-sectarian patriotic forces" you mentioned in a previous post, however. Are they the secular and leftist organizations who have lost much of their legitimacy through their tacit support of the invasion and occupation and their participation in the original provisional government? Precisely how does one manage to be part of the "patriotic forces" without fighting the imperialist occupiers of one's country?

It also seems a tad unfair to acknowledge, on the one hand, the disenfranchisement of the Sunnis by the U.S. invasion, and then characterize their resistance to American occupation as "sectarian."

The word "sectarian," when used to excess, begins to sound more like an epithet than a useful characterization - if you mean Islamic, say so. The Mehdi Army has expressed political support for certain aspects of the Sunni resistance in the past, and has received it in kind at various times. Surely the recent events in southern Lebanon, in which Communist and Hizbullah fighters fought and died side by side repelling the Iraeli invaders, should give us all food for thought.

“Surely the recent events in southern Lebanon, in which Communist and Hizbullah fighters fought and died side by side repelling the Iraeli invaders, should give us all food for thought.” Tadhg

Hizbullah tactics in Lebanon are indeed an exemplary lesson for the Iraqi factions of all sects.

To my knowledge, Hizbullah has never instigated mass murder against fellow Lebanese civilians of the Christian or Sunni sects. And by the way, sectarianism in the Iraqi political lexicon means championing one ethno religious group against its so called rivals.

As far as the fighting Iraqi militias are concerned, there are neither treacherous collaborators nor patriotic saints amongst them. The civil strife and sectarian hatred between Sunni, Kurd and Shia were initially manipulated by the fascist Saddam dictatorship and later cultivated by US imperialism in order to divide and conquer Iraq.

To my mind, the Iraqi patriotic forces are the following: leaders of the working class movement who oppose the colonial occupation, patriotic Muslim clerics who do not want to divide Iraq into rival Islamist medieval emirates, the democratic intelligentsia who suffered under fascism but also campaigns against the occupation and last but not least the Iraqi peasantry and its patriotic leaders who continue to struggle against tribalism. In Conclusion: all those that strive for independence, inclusive secular democracy and socialism.

The armed conflict in Iraq is not a national liberation war. It is a civil war, fanned by US imperialism. Imperialism had fooled the Kurdish national liberation movement into a tactical alliance against the Saddam dictatorship.

The Iranian Islamist regime cajoled the Iraqi Shia majority factions into another tactical alliance with the US (after Saddam defeated and slaughtered the Shia uprising in 1991, with American support). The Kurdish/Shia anti Saddam coalition blundered into cooperation with the US, mainly because the Saddam dictatorship had successfully managed to brutally crash any attempt to create a more representative Iraqi government. But the Kurdish leaders can not be described as traitors, because they are still working for national self determination and a free Kurdish homeland.

Most of the Shia leaders can not be described as pro imperialist collaborators, their community was decimated by the Saddam dictatorship so they struggled to search for a more inclusive government. However, a minority of Shia leaders backed by Iran are scheming for a Shia Islamist state in Iraq. That outcome would lead to the breakup of Iraq and continuous bloodshed for years to come.

Who can advise me some good online resumes?