SWP support Hamas "coup"

by Guy de Cervens Wed Jun 20, 2007 13:44

Then it is the first instance in history where the democratically elected government has carried out a coup to take power!

by coupwatch Wed Jun 20, 2007 15:05

To be accurate Hamas where members of government with Fatah. They took military action to drive Fatah out. It was a type of a coup. Now we have two governments fighting it out and the Palestinians are suffering again at the hands of their own "leaders" and probably will suffer at the hands of the IDF in the near future as well.

by Dub Wed Jun 20, 2007 15:43

SWP go from dire liberalism of People Before Profit Alliance to the bizzare uncrticial ultra-leftism of supporting Political Islam. Any socialist that is serious will have to make the point that Hamas are not progressive. They may be an expression of Palestinian anger at Fatah and Imperialism but they are not Progressive. Any serious socialist would point out that what is needed is working class people to take control of the Middle East and ditch political Islam, the leaders, and Imperialism. The SWP have very odd positions on "anti-imperialism". I presume we can all remember when the SWP did not condemn the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon. At 9/11 there was internal rumblings and within a few days this was altered quickly before anyone in the real world would actually see a bizarre left group with a questionable position on terrorism and Political Islam.

by Tom Joad - SP Wed Jun 20, 2007 16:18

socialist analysis available of recent developments in Palestine http://www.socialistworld.net/z_cgi/pf/pf.cgi?url=/eng/....html

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:02

These are the demands of Ma'avak Sotzialisti, the Israeli section of the CWI. The full article is at: Hamas and Fatah go to war .
http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/pages/thesocialist026...7.htm

- An end to Israeli military operations in the West Bank and Gaza and the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from those territories.

- Stop the international embargo of the Palestinian Authority.

- For the building of direct links between community groups and workers on both sides of the national divide.

- For the building of democratic and independent workers' parties in both Palestine and Israel.

- For the overthrow of capitalism and the building of a socialist confederation of the Middle East, with a socialist Palestine alongside a socialist Israel.

by MichaelY - iawm/ipsc Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:17

For some useful info and analysis from Jerusalem, written on June 18 and from a Jewish anti-Zionist perspective please go to the article by Michael Warschawski in the thread :

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83140

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:22

I just phoned a representative of the IPSC and he confirmed that Michael Y does not speak for the IPSC and that Michael Y has been asked to refrain from putting IPSC after his name.

by MichaelY - iawm/ipsc Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:38

The IPSC speaks for the IPSC in its Bulletin

The IPSC is alarmed at the decision of the European Union and the United States to extend recognition to an administration which has been created by President Mahmoud Abbas in violation of the Palestinian Basic Law. Indeed, it is ironic that the US administration has welcomed this violation of a Palestinian law when the website of its own US Agency for International Development makes the provisions of the law available for all to read -- see www.usaid.gov/wbg/misc/Amended_Basic_Law.pdf

The Basic Law does allow the president to remove a prime minister but a new government must be approved by the Legislative Council. Mr. Abbas was in violation of the Basic Law when he issued a decree allowing himself to swear in a new cabinet and give it the power to make decisions without the approval of the Legislative Council, in which the party of the deposed prime minister has a majority.

The IPSC has long criticised the EU's participation, at the instigation of Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom, in the boycott of the Palestinian government which was democratically elected by the Palestinian people in January 2006.

We have criticised the EU for ignoring the fact that the US and Israel were helping to arm and train forces whose aim was the overthrow of this democratically elected government. The simmering factionalism which finally came to a head in Gaza is a direct result of this interference, a policy of 'divide and conquer' that was used to great effect by the same two countries two decades ago in Nicaragua. No wonder that, in an article in Wednesday's Washington Post, Ahmed Yousef, a senior political adviser to Ismail Haniyeh, the democractically-elected prime minister, refers to these forces as "Palestinian contras" -- see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20....html

In this context, the EU's decision to grant aid to the new administration looks like connivance at the overthrow of the government which was democratically chosen by the Palestinian people in exemplary elections. It is a decision which seems calculated to divide the Palestinian people, thereby weakening their ability to unite in opposition to their oppressor, Israel.

In view of this we call on the newly-elected Irish Government to abandon their previous supine support for US/EU policy and, mindful of our own long experience of colonial oppression, finally extend to the Palestinian people the support they need in their brave battle for survival.

We trust, however, that the long Palestinian tradition of sumud (steadfastness) will enable them to overcome this latest obstacle to their liberation.

Support Palestine, join the IPSC

If recent events have shown anything, it is that the people of Palestine need international solidarity now more than ever. In the last 6 years, the IPSC volunteers have tried to provide a voice for Palestine in Ireland by organising demonstrations pand pickets, by writing to the local and national media, by organising films showings and debates and by informing the public on the streets.

The IPSC invites all readers of the newsletter to join our team of enthousiastic volunteers. Branches in Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Galway Limerick, Newbridge and Sligo are eager to welcome you as part of the team. Contact the branch closest to you and we’ll be happy to tell you more about our activities and how you can help.

Are you unable to join, for whatever reason? You financial contribution is just as welcome!
http://www.ipsc.ie/contact.php

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:49

Michael you don't speak for the IPSC. The IPSC accept that people have the right to criticise Hamas. The IPSC do not think that I am Islamophobic because I believe in womens rights, LGBT rights and Secularism.

by MichaelY - iawm/ipsc Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:08

Dorothy, please go to my response in http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83140&comment_limit=0&c...98734
and leave it at that

by left observer Fri Jun 22, 2007 13:53

Trotsky said that anyone who does not support national liberation movements should be "christened with a bullet"

Lenin gave unconditional support to national liberation movements as a blow against imperialism, he said the left should not join them or try to portray them as left but to build working class movements alongside it.

The whole recent palestinian affair reminds me of the split between pro and anti-treaty IRA, with pro-treaty (Fatah) colloberating with imperialism to crush anti-treaty forces (Hamas).

Therefore anyone who does not support democratically elected Hamas in their struggle against imperialism is either an idiot or for some reason has a sad vendetta against the swp. There i said it

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jun 22, 2007 14:25

Trotsky never supported religious fundamentalists. He would have seen Hamas for what it is: the enemy of all workers. After the Russian Civil War, Trotsky was Chairman of the Commision for the Eradication of Religion and Superstition.

by Bronstein Fri Jun 22, 2007 14:35

Ah now lads, can we not have a discussion without saying "Trotsky would have said this / no he would have said this!" The poor fella has been dead for nearly seventy years now. He never lived to see Hamas or Hezbullah or even the foundation of Israel. God knows what he would have said about the current situation. Best just to make the case for left-wingers to be supporting or attacking Hamas on its merits, without resorting to the authority of a long-dead man who didn't believe in life after death.

by Erich Muehsam Fri Jun 22, 2007 15:13

Well said!

If you want to read the opinions of a living Iranian Socialist regarding Islam then just go here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83143

Torab Saleth of Workers Left Unity Iran exposes the SWP as apologists for the Tehran government. Torab outlines how the SWP destroyed the anti war movement in Britain.

by left observer Fri Jun 22, 2007 15:21

Thats true but i was only using him as an prominent example and the backing of lenin and trotsky, even marx if you look at his work on the irish question does lend certain weight to an argument but i do take your point.

My point is In situations such as this do you support Hamas and the national liberation stuggle or fatah which is backed by the most horrible form of imperialism. simple choice. Also, you must also respect democracy. Like it or not the palestinian people have voted for hamas. We must respect their wishes and support hamas but also a separate workers movement alongside.

PS.
"Hamas is not progressive"

Well its more progressive than Israeli occupation and the collusion of fatah.

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jun 22, 2007 15:29

Hamas won the support of 42% of voters in the last election. Secular parties won more than 55%.

Hamas wants to impose an Islamic State, governed under sharia "law" wherby women would have to prove their innocence if they were raped, otherwise they could be stoned to death for adultery. Hamas also would bring in the death penalty for gays.

Already under Hamas women who dont wear hijabs are being attacked and threatened. Female journalists in Gaza have been threatened with death unless they wear veils when on tv.

This morning Richard Crowley of RTE reported on radio 1 on conditions in Gaz. Richard met a man who was fleeing from Gaza, the man is married to a christian and was told that he had 7 days to divorce the woman or he would be killed

Thats not my idea of progressive.

by sp member Fri Jun 22, 2007 15:44

Left observer, Marxists are opposed to imperialism. Marxists know what imperialism is: a development in the character of international capitalism (expansion of markets etc.). Marxists are opposed to capitalism. Marxists therefore recognise that imperialism can be defeated only by a mass movement of the oppressed against capitalism.

That is the basis for the position of Marxists on the current (as with all) developments. That the palestinian people are opposing imperialism is a good thing. We have solidarity with their struggle. However we do not support politically the reactionary 'leadership' of their struggle because it's based on a programme of further exploitation, not emancipation

Hamas is not the Palestinian people

by left observer Fri Jun 22, 2007 16:13

"Secular parties won more than 55%."
Fatah are not a secular party either
The fact that Fatah is being crushed in palestine is testament to the fact that the people's allegiance has switched to Hamas.

" Hamas wants to impose an Islamic State, governed under sharia "law" wherby women would have to prove their innocence if they were raped, otherwise they could be stoned to death for adultery. Hamas also would bring in the death penalty for gays."

Do you get your information straight from the pages of the daily mail or something? This is bullshit of the highest degree and whats more its the same second hand arguments that imperialism used to use against FATAH when it represented the national liberation struggle and continues to use against others such as hezbollah.

"Marxists therefore recognise that imperialism can be defeated only by a mass movement of the oppressed against capitalism."
Wrong! imperialism can be defeated only by a mass movement of the oppressed against IMPERIALISM not capitalism as a whole. hamas is a big part of the mass movement against imperialism in palestine just as all bourgeois nationalist revolutionary movements were key in the overthrow of imperialism but not the overthrow of capitalism as seen in Ireland, india etc. and i have 3 MARXISTS who agree with this argument Lenin, trotsky and marx himself!

we would have a hard time finding anyone to support If we judged national liberation movements by your narrow sectarian standards.

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jun 22, 2007 16:20

"Do you get your information straight from the pages of the daily mail or something? "

No. Go read up about Hamas. They are an islamist party. They believe in creating an Islamic State. They believe in the introduction of sharia "law".

In Iran women and gays are stoned to death and hanged for expressing their sexuality. This is not imperialist propaganda, the Tehran government boasts about it.

"i have 3 MARXISTS who agree with this argument Lenin, trotsky and marx himself!"

Have you spoken to them recently? While they were alive none of them ever argued in favour of supporting religious fundamentalists.

by sp member Fri Jun 22, 2007 16:35

"Wrong! imperialism can be defeated only by a mass movement of the oppressed against IMPERIALISM not capitalism as a whole."

What does imperialisn mean to you left observer? Is it all about big nasty huns stomping on the nationally oppressed? Imperialism is just a deveopment in the class struggle which occure when the national capitalist classes in advanced countries outgrew their markets, so had to export capital and import profit from elsewhere, namely underdeveloped countries. Lenin had quite a bit to say on this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hs...x.htm

So, in the underdeveloped countries which the imperialists plundered, the development of large-scale capitalism etc, was driven and conditioned by the role of imperialism. The capitalist classes in these countries were thus unable to hold their class power without imperialism, thus making impossible an independant capitalist nation. That's Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. Your argument, defeat imperialism and establish capitalism corresponds to the Stalinist theory of '2 stages', which despite being adverse to the interests of working class people is illogical following from a Marxist analysis.

"bourgeois nationalist revolutionary movements were key in the overthrow of imperialism but not the overthrow of capitalism as seen in Ireland"

They did a great job didn't they?

by MichaelY - iawm/ipsc Fri Jun 22, 2007 16:50

If I'm not mistaken this is a thread about the military victory of Hamas militias over the corrupt Fatah cabal. In the usual fashion coming from the usual suspects, there is an attempt to divert the discussion onto a sterile level of Trotsky v Stalin or of bourgeois nationalism v proletarian internationalism, of national liberation v class struggle. It won't work.

I know Dorothy blew a gale a couple of days ago when I suggested that some Fatah heads were being supported by and collaborating with the CIA, among them Muhammed Dahlan, the Gaza henchman, who was hiding in Egypt as a guest of Mubarek while his troops were being chased away from Gaza. Documents have now come to the fore indicating that Dahlan may have been involved in a number of very spurious acts over the past period....watch this space.

In the meantime, please reflect on some comments made last Tuesday by this well-known pro-SWP/pro-Hamas/pro-Iranian commentator who goes under the name of Jimmy Carter

"In a speech before Ireland's eighth annual Forum on human rights Tuesday, the 83-year-old former President said the US and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, sought to subvert the outcome of the Palestinian elections by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power.

"That action was criminal," said Carter during a news conference.

Carter who observed the elections said they were quite fair and democratic.

He said Hamas won a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, adding that the movement had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdown with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Muhammed Abbas.

Hamas fighters last week routed Fatah forces answerable to Muhammed Dahlan, the American-backed former Gaza strongman.

Carter said the American-Israeli-European consensus to reopen direct aid to the new government in Ramallah, but to deny the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, represented an effort "to divide the Palestinian people into two peoples."

"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Fatah and Hamas." Carter described US policy toward Fatah as a failure.

"The US and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would conquer Hamas in Gaza..but Hamas this month routed Fatah because of its superior skills and discipline."

Finally, Carter castigated western efforts to isolate the now Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, calling on the international community to treat both the West Bank and Gaza Strip equally.

"This effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples now is a step in the wrong direction. All efforts of the international community should be to reconcile the two, but there is no effort from the outside to bring the two together."

Any comments SP comrades? Gale?

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jun 22, 2007 16:57

I am not interested in the opinions of a former US President. Under Carter the US continued to support reactionary regimes all over the world including the Shah in iran and Pinochet in Chile and other thugs too numerous to mention from Argentina to Zambia. Hundreds ofthousands if not millions were slaughtered on Carters watch.

But you see Carter as someone to be admired. That says a lot about your politics or lack of same.

by MichaelY - iawm/ipsc Fri Jun 22, 2007 17:17

"But you see Carter as someone to be admired. That says a lot about your politics or lack of same" says Dorothy Gale.

What a perceptive mind (s)he has....If I quoted Bush who said yesterday that Abbas is the real democratic President of the Palestinians, that would qualify me as an admirer of Dubya as well. If I quoted Solanas who was visiting Olmert and decided to lift sanctions on the West Bank Bantustan, here I go again admiring EU hacks. That says a lot abour DG's understanding and capacity to absorb and analyse positions!! Lol. For me I am vey interested to inform myself and try to understand what they're saying and why they're saying. You can stick to Trotsky good friend.

As for you, DG, stick to the arguments if you can!! Have a cup of whatever takes your fancy, don't personalise, I asked you to be cool twice today but talking to tha wall, watch your keyboard and if you feel like it argue your politics, your responses. Stick to the subject of the thread and regale us all.

by Jay Fri Jun 22, 2007 17:30 emmet06 at hotmail dot com

It seems as if the Left's only real position on the Palestinian situation is that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Doesn't matter if that group (Hamas) want to create an Islamic Fascist State in the Occupied Territories AND Israel itself. Doesn't matter if that group is fundamentally opposed to the democratic ideals of freedom of expression and individuals' liberties. Oh no, just as long as they're against those fascists in Tel Aviv, that's all that matters.

by left ob Fri Jun 22, 2007 17:45

If you don't support the national liberation movement (of which hamas like it or not is the biggest part) then what do you support?

by Jay Fri Jun 22, 2007 17:55

i support the creation of a palestinian state that is as democratic as possible, that respects all human rights (women, gays, israel's right to exist) and puts people's rights before religious extremism. unfortunantly no such group seems to exits in the territories right now, but hopefully one will emerge in years to come. i support the idea of a free palestine that can co-exist with the a pre-1967-border Israel, but i will not and never will support these terrorists with a mandate. you can have 100% support from a desperate and oppressed people, but that doesn't make it right. as devalera put it, the majority have no right to do wrong.

(and correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think hamas got a majority of palestinian votes anyway)

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jun 22, 2007 17:56

I support the PFLP & DFLP as well as the left elements of Fatah. I want to see Israel out of the Occupied Teritories. I support the Right of Return for those Palestinians who were driven out during the foundation of the Israeli State. Israel will say they cannot assimilate so many people. But Israel was able to assimilate 900,000 Russians. Therefore Israel can assimilate at least part of the Palestinian Diaspora.

In a perfect world there would be no States. In a better world than this one there would at least be a Democratic State of Israel-Palestine.

But we don't live in either a perfect or a better world. Therefore Israel has a right to exist peacefully within its pre 1967borders. Israel should withdraw from all of the Occupied Territories and allow a Right to Return.

If you dont support the right of Israel to exist then what are you advocating? That Jews take swimming lessons?

Jay, not all socialists support Islamists.

by MichaelY - iawm/ipsc Fri Jun 22, 2007 18:12

Jay,

Re: Hamas, you have omitted, I am sure it just slipped your mind, to say that it is the ELECTED Government of the Palestinian people....all of them fascists or was it a collective act of 'false consciousness'? Small point, I know, but for those of those friends of yours who want to 'export' democracy to the Middle East, a rather important and crucial point. Now as for the Islamic State that Hamas is supposedly fighting for (links please) and want to create what is it that in your opinion that defines it as "fascist"? Will it be less or more Islamic, or fascist, than, say, Saudi Arabia, who are our friends in that area.....check recent visit there by President McA and a whole business delegation. Will it be more or less Islamic (or fascist) than Indonesia, Malaysia, or even closer to home Pakistan? Or the US allies in the 'War of ( no pun or mistake here!!)Terror' Algeria or Libya? Or does the notion of 'Islamic' correspond in your brain with the concept of 'fascism'? If it does, as I suspect is the case, you're a very orthodox and fundamentalist Islamophobe my friend!! Lol! You can translate that in your language if you wish.

Unless you can come up with some rational and factual argumentation to back up your assertions, I will summise that your views come from Fox News, Sky and a few pro-Israeli hacks.

Tell us prey....

by Jay Fri Jun 22, 2007 20:05 emmet06 at hotmail dot com

First of all, there's no need for you to launch into your 'i'm-holier-than-thou' condescending and arrogant tone. Perhaps I was asking for too much in expecting an intelligent response. I do not automatically equate Islam and Fascism with each other and I'll thank you not to make such assumptions about me on a public forum, perhaps you'd like it if I called you anti-semitic?!

As for Hamas' agenda for Palestine, I have not read dozens of books on the history and believes of this extremist group. My information on them, and the basis for my believe that they are a very dangerous extremist fascist group, comes from the mainstream media, wikipedia and it's links, and from what I can see before my eyes when I see masked terrorists holding an AK-47 in one hand and the Koran in the Gaza government buildings on the news. I know you'll be dying to tell me how you're much more learned than me on this group and how many anti-Israel marches you've been to etc. but I don't really care to be honest.

I picked some of the best bits from Hamas' objectives:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
''Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Now, I haven't read any Trotskyist essays on this topic but it seems to me from Hamas' clearly stated objectives AND it's general behaviour towards Israel and the Palestinians (i.e. rocket attacks, wanting to create an Islamic state under Islamic law etc.) that Hamas are indeed, a pack of extremists.

Now can you, Michael, enlighten me as to Hamas' progressive and modern stances on, for example, the right of Israel to exist, rights of women and gays etc., and how they are generally NOT a pack of extremists?

by left observer Fri Jun 22, 2007 20:44

Sorry dorothy but no such movement for what you ask for exists in palestine, you may as well tell santa what you want for christmas. In times like this we must be pragmatic, the situation cannot be ignored by the left. we must make a decision, do we support the palestinian people led by hamas for ALL ITS FAULTS (GREATLY EXAGERATED BY THE MURDOCK PRESS) in their fight against imperialism or do we support the corrupt, self serving traitors of Fatah who are the puppets of Israel and the USA and have little support from the people, just because they are slightly less fundamentalist than Hamas (indeed were once hounded in the press just like hamas until they struck a deal with imperialism)? Make a choice

by Dorothy Gale Sat Jun 23, 2007 18:55

"Sorry dorothy but no such movement for what you ask for exists in palestine"

Well the PFLP & DFLP do exist and they got 7.5% of the vote between them. They stand for a secular socialist republic.There was a time when the SWP would have supported that. I don't think theres much point in us discussing these points on this thread any further. I'm not avoiding debate, rather I dont want repetition from either of us.

So unless either of us bring fresh information to the thread or there are further events lets sign off.

by Felix Quigley Mon Jun 25, 2007 09:24

Dorothy Gale

The differences between Fatah and Hamas are not over the question of destroying Israel. Both Fatah and Hamas, and also the two groups you mention want Israel to disappear.

Abbas wrote his Doctorate thesis as a project denying the Holocaust etc.

As an aside to that, the Bush and Olmert regimes pumped weapons into Fatah into the Gaza, the Olmert government less so because of fear of what would happen. These guns etc are now the property of Hamas.

Dorothy Gale, what you fail to do is trace the origins of Fatah. It was set up by Hajj Amin el Husseini, and this was a man who was a complete antisemite, being part of Hitlers Final Solution. He was in short a Nazi criminal, a wanted Nazi criminal, but post war he was aided by the French and British.

Readers can find material explaining this on www.tenc.net and www.hirhome.com

Agree with your remarks re Hamas and position which Arab women, gays etc now find themselves in...critical

by Tony Mon Jun 25, 2007 13:04

We’ve seen it all before, haven’t we? These noble scribblers for the rights of the oppressed.
If you were around in the 1950s you would have seen them suddenly discovering that Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus was a right wing bigot. Which he was. And of course it was just a coincidence that Britain was fighting a colonial war in Cyprus.
At around the same time these same characters discovered that the Mau Mau in Kenya had very reactionary religious beliefs. Which they had. And it was just a coincidence that Britain was fighting a colonial war in Kenya.
In the 1980s people who hadn’t given a shit about a military regime in Argentina suddenly realised that Galtieri was a right-wing despot.
I’m sure you’ve caught on. The next refrain is that indeed he was. And it was just a coincidence that Britain was fighting a colonial war in the Malvinas (Falklands to the British).
And, yes, in South Africa the ANC were killing people, and it was horrific. But it was just a coincidence…
Those of us who are not old enough to have been around at the time have at least read about how the militaristic regime in the Kaiser’s Germany was made up of brutal reactionaries – as indeed it was. Just a coincidence that our morally outraged campaigners happened on this discovery at the time Britain was…etc.
They never consider who it is who fights to the last drop of someone else’s blood to maintain a world where brutal savagery is the norm. That would be covering up the brutality of – here insert name of current enemy. That would be excusing the crimes of…etc.
There was a nice rhyme from the time of the enclosures of common land:
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from off the goose.

How nice it must be to be a human rights campaigner who always finds that, coincidentally, their current enemy is the enemy of their own rulers. How neat. How simple, how easy it is to decide. How comfortable.

by Dorothy Gale Mon Jun 25, 2007 13:13

"In the 1980s people who hadn’t given a shit about a military regime in Argentina suddenly realised that Galtieri was a right-wing despot."

Who are you writing about? The vast majority of the left in Britain and Ireland opposed the British War and called for the defeat of the British Taskforce. Socialist Action had a frontpage headline: Sink The Fleet! While opposing the British aggression, the left continued to support those in Argentina who were fighting against the Fascist Dictatorship.

Militant had a somewhat different position but they had always carried out solidarity work on behalf of Galtieris victims

by Felix Quigley Mon Jun 25, 2007 15:50

It is very difficult to follow US intentions not only in the Middle East, but anywhere in the world. They are very adept at covering their tracks, and saying many things at the one time, with one eye always on their own working class in America.

I think there is no doubt that the US in promoting Abbas and Fatah were planning a coup against Hamas. And the evidence shows that Hamas struck to protect themselves. This does NOT make Hamas other than they are, a set of vicious Jewhaters and Jewkillers.

Whatever their reasons for that is open to debate.

But the US and CIA have been arming and promoting Fatah now for a long time. Yet it was the US that were insistent on the elections which placed Hamas in government. And it was Rice who insisted against the Israelis that the Rafah crossing be fully opened, across which arms flooded in to Hamas.

I learned in Yugoslavia to not trust at face value anything which the US said in public. In the end there they supported Croatian fascism, Bosnian Islamists in the shape of the Izetbegovic against moderate Muslims, and then in Kosovo the gangster islamist KLA, who marched in on the heels of NATO and the US to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of Jew, Romany and Serb, buring down Orthodox churches in the process. All backed by the US elite. Or indeed trust anything that the British elite or the EU ruling classes say either.

So what are they at exactly.

I believe they the US strange as it sounds to some I am sure have a relation with Islamofascism.

The thing which Dorothy Gale must reckon with is the serious antisemitism inside the Arab world, historically and contemporarily. I am not sure that she and the Left in Ireland are prepared to do that.

The Palestinian issue has been sold to the Left in Ireland in a very slick manner and in their isolation due to the dominance of nationalistic republicanism they have adopted it. In some cases to the exclusion of everything else in the world, like a missionary crusade.

The origins of this "Palestinianism" is a factor.

by left observer Mon Jun 25, 2007 16:13

Israel to free Palestinian funds

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked the cabinet to approve the vote
Israel has approved the release of frozen tax funds to the emergency government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
The move will help reinforce Mr Abbas's position against Hamas, which has taken control of the Gaza Strip.

An Israeli official said the tax revenues would be handed over in stages to prevent the money reaching Hamas.

The money was originally withheld by Israel after the Islamist group came to power in the January 2006 election.

The cabinet's vote came ahead of a summit that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is due to attend with Mr Abbas and Egyptian and Jordanian leaders.

But the summit will not see Israel entering into negotiations on a final peace deal with the Palestinians, a government official said.

"These talks do not include final status issues, but rather, how the prime minister and the president of the Palestinian Authority would envision a future Palestinian state," David Baker said.

Scepticism

Mr Olmert said the funds would "gradually help the new Palestinian government, one that is not a Hamas government".

"We will discuss with the Palestinian president tomorrow, and with the Palestinian government in the summit's aftermath, how we release the funds," he said.

The Israelis should release all our money. These are Palestinian, not Israeli, funds

Saeb Erekat

An official said the money would be released once a mechanism is established to ensure that it does not reach Hamas.

A BBC correspondent says Israel has spoken about releasing the tax revenues over before, and many Palestinians will be sceptical until the funds are handed over.

An Israeli government official said the cabinet approved the transfer of around $350m (£125m), the Reuters news agency reported.

But it added this was short of the $700m sought by the Palestinian president.

A senior aide to Mr Abbas, Saeb Erekat, said: "The Israelis should release all our money. These are Palestinian, not Israeli, funds."

Last week, the US, the EU, and Israel said they would lift the economic embargo on the emergency government announced by Mr Abbas.

At the time Israel said it would handover about $800m (£400m) of custom taxes.

Earlier this month Mr Abbas dissolved government and declared a state of emergency, following deadly clashes between his Fatah faction and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The fighting left Hamas in control of Gaza, while Fatah says it retains control in the West Bank.

by jeff Mon Jun 25, 2007 20:55

"Who are you writing about? The vast majority of the left in Britain and Ireland opposed the British War and called for the defeat of the British Taskforce. Socialist Action had a frontpage headline: Sink The Fleet! While opposing the British aggression, the left continued to support those in Argentina who were fighting against the Fascist Dictatorship."

Basically, everyone who lived in the Falklands was and still is British. There never has been a Spanish speaking minorety on the islands, with the exception of a small colony forced out by the British in the early 1800s, pre-Argentinian independence. Nonethelesss, Argentina has claimed the islands ever since.The Argentinian junta had no mandate to attack the islands.

Maybe I'm not supposed to acknowledge this fact, what with being Irish, and all, I'm supposed to be decrying the Imperialist British. Fact is, the likes of the SWP were decrying Serbian fascism in Bosnia in the nineties, and when a repetition took place in Kosovo, NATO step in.What do SWP do? Oppose the intervention! Now, granted, one can condemn reckless use of depleted uranium, but overall, I wonder what the SWP actual solution to ethnic cleansing would be? A clue can be found if one were to reference their attitude to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991; namely, that the Kuwaitis could overthrow Saddam's invasion force themselves!Nice one.

And no, please don't pigeon hole me, I'm not a supporter of Gulf War 2003, nor of Israel's policy of land/water grabbing and occupation. But I do think a majorety of the hard left in the westare useless wet nosed drips with little or no grounding in reality. ;0P

Fat lot of use they'd have been to the Falkland islanders. At least they can get on with the business of sheep herding...

by PaddyK Wed Jun 27, 2007 02:03

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7058.shtml

UNISON (the biggest trade union of public workers in the UK representing over 1.3 million workers) calls for boycott of Israel on 20 June 2007 . The statement pasted below, in my opinion, is particularly forthright and decisive. If the Left still exists ... it is in these committed conversational tones that show no need for self doubt or glamour.

+++Conference recognises that the BDS policy will be opposed by the Israeli trade union federation Histadrut. Conference notes that the Histadrut expressed no opposition to the invasions of Lebanon or Gaza, nor to the apartheid wall, throughout 2006 despite its own substantial economic conflicts with the Israeli government. Conference considers that appropriate relations with the Histadrut are based on explaining our union's policy and encouraging the Histadrut to condemn the Israeli government's blatant violations of international law.

Conference reaffirms UNISON's right and desire to act in solidarity with the Palestinian people+++

by Tony Wed Jun 27, 2007 13:09

Oh dear, Dorothy, you shouldn't assume I know who you are or what organisation you represent.
Still, you've given me the answer I didn't seek. Now I know you are a member/supporter of CSI
You claim that
"The vast majority of the left in Britain and Ireland opposed the British War and called for the defeat of the British Taskforce. Socialist Action had a frontpage headline: Sink The Fleet! While opposing the British aggression, the left continued to support those in Argentina who were fighting against the Fascist Dictatorship.

Militant had a somewhat different position but they had always carried out solidarity work on behalf of Galtieris victims"
Remember the internet, Dorothy. I did - I carried out a google search and found an excellent article about Militant's position on the Falklands war.
Anyone who wishes can read it here, assuming I've managed to link successfully -

http://www.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/pubs/sr-js.htm

Now I'm not a supporter and/or member of the SWP (I live 12,00 km away, and don't have the health to be an activist) but it's obvious they've nailed you here.
Your organisation was shonky on the Falklands and it's shonky now on the Middle East

by Tony the Tiger Wed Jun 27, 2007 13:35

What are you blathering on about now Tony? Why do you keep posting on Indymedia trying to witch hunt anyone who dares to criticise regimes that happen to be on the wrong side of US imperialism at the moment? What's your point? I can't detect any valid arguments or relevant points in what you say. Give us a break. Give Dorothy a break. Just give it a rest, you've repeated the same intolerant arguments again and again and it's getting very tiresome.

by PaddyK Thu Jun 28, 2007 01:52

Gaza has friends.

Northern Ireland's biggest trade union, the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, unanimously passed all five motions on Palestinian solidarity discussed at the 2007 annual delegate conference.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7064.shtml

Thay said:

+++Conference agreed that it was "outrageous that the Palestinian people should be forced to recognize as legitimate" an Israeli state that had defied numerous UN resolutions. This detailed resolution went on to claim that the policies of the Israeli government were akin to those of Apartheid South Africa. It therefore called for the same type of response from the trade union movement -- a boycott of Israeli goods. The motion finally called for an investigation of union investments to ensure that they did not contribute to the oppression of the Palestinian people.+++

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Jun 28, 2007 09:51

Seeing as you are insisting on posting this stuff on more than one thread I find it necessary to post my reply as well - here goes -

You said
'Remember the internet, Dorothy. I did - I carried out a google search and found an excellent article about Militant's position on the Falklands war.
Anyone who wishes can read it here, assuming I've managed to link successfully -

http://www.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/pubs/sr-js.htm

Now I'm not a supporter and/or member of the SWP (I live 12,00 km away, and don't have the health to be an activist) but it's obvious they've nailed you here.'

If you are going to criticise the position of the Militant/CWI on the Falklands War - at least do it with what we actually said not what the SWP pass off for analysis. The SWP were/are incapable of understanding Marxism and Marxist analysis and take a hop-skip and jump approach to critiquing political statements.

If you want to deal with the CWI attitude to the Falklands I suggest you don't just stop at the first item that comes up on a google search.

Try this

http://www.socialismtoday.org/108/falklands.html

by Aragon Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:27

Several things can be true of any group at the same time:

Yes, Hamas have an oppressive attitude to women, gays etc which should be vociferously exposed/opposed.

Yes, the imposition of Sharia law should be opposed

Yes, they are the elected government - the choice of the Palestinian people (they won an outright majority of the seats in parliament and 46% of the vote - that is a bigger share of the vote than most political parties have ever won in any democratic election - and this one was conducted more democratically and transparently than most. The opposition parties can't be lumped together as a single block of voters sharing identical views, as implied in some posts above - there are significant differences there)

Yes, it is true that Hamas had done their best to fill in the gaps in social welfare provision in the preceding years because Fatah were so corrupt and incompetent they could no longer watch the suffering of Palestinian people without trying to do something to alleviate it. Whatever about their other views, that was a genuine form of solidarity and is the reason they got elected.

Should we support the annihilation of a democratically elected government by the US on the basis that they are bringing democracy by annihilating them? Should we support the crushing sanctions they have imposed on the Palestinians by the US as punishment for exercising their right to choose according to rules accepted and agreed by the US beforehand - rules that would have seen G W Bush routed in both of the presidential elections that he won? We may not support that form of democracy but let's at least acknowledge the violent hypocrisy of the US and Israel who claim that they do. Is it alright that so many Palestinians are suffering even as we sit at our computers and debate the issue in comfort? Should we condone their suffering as somehow being likely to lead to an improvement in Hamas' attitudes towards women, homosexuality etc?

The same with Iran - they stand accused of having a dangerous nuclear weapons programme when they do not possess the capability to build even one. That this accusation should be levelled at them by the country with the most devastating arsenal of nuclear weaponry in the world is yet another form of murderous western hypocrisy. Does the fact that the Iranian government oppresses women and homosexuals justify the proposed slaughter of Iranians - including many homosexuals, women etc?

The immediate issue has got to be the fundamentally humanitarian: the loss of life, the illness and destruction of basic services by the US and Israel. These things affect everyone of every persuasion and orientation. It is at least as bad as if not worse than the oppression of women and gay people on religious grounds. The greater evil at this point is surely the threat to life that the US and Israel represent - there is nothing that precludes strenuous opposition to this while at the same time strenuously opposing oppressive practices.

Why all the argument?

by Aragon Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:35

"The Palestinians are a backward people, indoctrinated toward brutality. They don't rate a sovereign state or anyone's help until they civilize themselves," wrote Andrew C. McCarthy of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in National Review online.

"We are enabling their hatred when we provide support without insisting that the Palestinian people – not just Abbas and Fatah, but the people – convincingly forswear revolution, terrorism, violence, ethnic-cleansing, and the goal of eliminating Israel."

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=11209

Is there not a similarity between this view and the idea that Hamas somehow deserve to be violently overthrown because of what we regard as uncivilised behaviour? Andrew McCarthy is as convinced of his moral stand as many left-wing posters are about the oppression of women and homosexuals. Should we draw the same conclusion about how to proceed?

by pat c Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:45

"Yes, they are the elected government - the choice of the Palestinian people (they won an outright majority of the seats in parliament and 46% of the vote -"

This might be a good opportunity to give some facts and figures on the 2006 Palestinian elections.

Hamas received 45% of the national list vote contrasted with 42% for Fatah. Seats allocated to each party closely reflect this proportion, with Hamas winning 30 of 66 national list seats (46%) and Fatah winning 27 seats (41%)

Vote totals for district seats show similar levels of support for each party but drastically different results in the number of seats each won. Hamas received 41% of the district seat vote for all districts, while Fatah received 36%. However, Hamas won 45 of 66 district seats (68%) compared with 17 (26%) for Fatah. Hamas is therefore over-represented in district seat allocation by 27% (18 seats) while Fatah is under-represented by 10% (7 seats).

http://www.fairvote.org/reports/researchreports/palesti...6.pdf

So Hamas did not win a landslide and in the district seats they are way over represented. A bit like Westminster where Blair got a big majority on 36% of the vote.

" Does the fact that the Iranian government oppresses women and homosexuals justify the proposed slaughter of Iranians - including many homosexuals, women etc?"

No. But we should continue to suport the the Iranian Socialist Opposition who oppose any Imperialist intervention and also oppose the Iranian Regime who are slaughtering gays, women, trade-unionists and socialists.

" The greater evil at this point is surely the threat to life that the US and Israel represent - there is nothing that precludes strenuous opposition to this while at the same time strenuously opposing oppressive practices."

Agreed. Despite political differences with Hamas they should be supported when they militarily defend Gaza against Israeli aggression. Any blockade of Gaza should be opposed.

"Why all the argument?"

Because not everyone who has posted here is as principled or reasonable as you are. Usually when anyone mentions womens rights or gay rights in relation to Iran or Palestine they are immediately attacked as an Islamophobe and/or a supporter of US/Israeli Imperialism.

by Tony Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:50

Dorothy appears to born again as Jolly Red Giant or something like that.
Did I post on two threads? Quite possibly, and if I did it was a simple mistake - I don't have broadband and the speeds are very slow even for dial-up, so I tend to open more than one window to keep me awake while I'm waiting for others to open.
You suggest I just chose the first site that popped after Googling. I didn't.
You kindly provided a link to a CWI article about the Falklands/Malvinas war, and I checked it out. Unfortunately it was not written during the war, but 20 years afterwards. Not really useful for dealing with the SWP article I read. In addition the SWP article provided actual quotes from the CWI at the time of the war itself, and showed how the CWI had carefully written headlines and omissions which allowed it to fudge attitudes to the war. Yes, tucked carefully away there were correct politics, but the impression left from the CWI's "popular paper" was very different from the article you referred me to which was written 20 years after the event and which, even then, doesn't seem to be from the CWI's newspaper type articles, but from a theoretical journal.
Can you remember my comments which started this discussion? They didn't mention the CWI at all. Obviously you felt they were aimed at the CWI. They weren't, but were in response to some of the posters on this (or perhaps another)thread.
Still, if the cap fits...

by Aragon Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:08

This is a good source of information on the election including links to articles from various perspectives:

http://www.electronicintifada.net/bytopic/416.shtml

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:26

Firstly - Not Dorothy - don't know who she is - I have been posting under this name on indymedia for quite a while.

Secondly - wasn't addressing your original comments - merely your use of an SWP article to distort the CWI's position during the Falklands War.

Listen the SWP are very adept at selectivly quoting from articles to back up a really nonsensical argument. If you want to criticise the political position of an organisation - then use what they actually said - not what someone else said they said - primary source - not biased edited highlights. During the time of the Falklands War the SWP were on one of their ultra-left binges and letting fly at anything that wasn't 100% in agreement with their revolution NOW attitude.

The 'Militant' paper from the period is not online but if you really are interested try these:

From 'The Rise of Militant'
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/militant/mil2frame.htm...0.htm

And an article written by Ted Grant at the time of the Falklands War
http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/falklands_war_1982.html

This article in particular deals with some of the issues in the SWP rant.

by pat c Thu Jun 28, 2007 14:54

This is how well the humane Israelis treat refugees.

Officials in Beersheba, Israel, Wednesday sent 200 Sudanese refugees to Jerusalem, claiming that their city had run out of available aid.

A spokesman for the Beersheba Municipality told The Jerusalem Post that the refugees' needs could no longer be met in the city, and accused the Israeli government of not taking appropriate steps to offer additional aid.

by Dub swp - swp Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:34

FOR THE RECORD.
Sorry Mr red giant, that bull might go down well with your younger members, but the facts are very different. SWP opening attacked the war, called for the defeat of the Brittish army and stood up to Imperialism..not an ultra left binge.
Calling for workers to unite against Thatcher on economic grounds, attacking the Agries, and not mentioning the war was your record.....same as most of your encounters with imperialism or colonialism........
No doubt your theoritical journals of the time made some correct marxists points, they always do, but god forbid your paper or members should confront the imperial nationalism of workers on the ground.... that would be ultra left.

by guydebordisdead Fri Jun 29, 2007 13:58

"swp...uncrticial ultra-leftism of supporting Political Islam"

There is nothing left about supporting these groups, it marks a break with the left on their part.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Jun 29, 2007 14:01

The attitude of the SWP during the Falklands war was that if you didn't call for the defeat of the British forces - you weren't opposing the war.

The basis of the SWP's campaign during the war was 'withdraw the fleet' - In response to this slogan the 'Militant' posed the following:

'To force the withdrawal of the Task Force would require a general strike, with the workers taking power into their own hands. While the capitalists retain the power, they will use it to defend their class interests, whether at home or abroad. But in the present situation a call for a general strike to end the war would get no support, even from the advanced sections of the working class. Even the ultra-left sects who, all forlorn, cry ‘Stop the war!’ have not had the temerity to call for a general strike. Such a slogan would be hollow through and through. It would immediately be shown to be completely unrealistic. Nor could the call to stop the war or withdraw the Fleet provide a basis even for a mass campaign of demonstrations, meetings, and agitation – because it leaves unanswered, in the eyes of workers, the vital question of the rights of the Falkland Islanders and the question of opposing a vicious military-police dictatorship in Argentina.'

Dub SWP states that the SWP 'called for the defeat of the Brittish army'

In response the Militant outlined the following:
'The position taken by some of the ultra-left sects, who actually came out in support of the Junta, could only play into the hands of the Tories and British imperialism. Fearful that they would be diverted by the pressure of patriotic, bourgeois sentiments, they tried to insure themselves against opportunism by subscribing to an inflexible policy. The only way consistently to oppose the British bourgeoisie, they claim, is to support the enemy of the British bourgeoisie – even if this happens to be Argentina’s military-police dictatorship! From the correct starting point of opposition to capitalist war, the ultra-left sects (who claim to be Marxists) hared off down a dead-end street.'

Dub SWP adds:
'and stood up to Imperialism'

Militant counter this by:
'But the Argentinean Junta’s war over the Falklands is not a war of national liberation against imperialism. On the contrary, in seizing the Falklands the Argentine Junta is pursuing imperialistic aims on the part of Argentinean capitalism...Far from awakening the national and democratic consciousness of the country, the seizure of the Falklands has allowed the Junta to whip up all the worst nationalistic, patriotic prejudices of the middle class and sections of the workers. If it were a national war against an attempt of British imperialism to subjugate Argentina and its people – as in Trotsky’s theoretical example – it would be entirely different.'

By calling for a defeat of the British Army and adopting the attitude of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' the SWP were actually calling for a VICTORY for Argentinian Imperialism.

Dub SWP continues:
'Calling for workers to unite against Thatcher on economic grounds, attacking the Agries, and not mentioning the war was your record'

This is what Militant actually said:
'THE TASK OF Marxists is to explain the real reasons for the war, laying bare the class motives of both the Junta and the Tories, exposing the real war-aims of both Argentine capitalism and British capitalism. We are against this capitalist war. But it is a question of how to oppose the war, how to appeal to the majority of workers in order to mobilise effective mass opposition to the war. Mere denunciation of the war and calls to withdraw the Task Force will neither be listened to by the capitalists nor will they get a response from the majority of workers....

...Only the bringing down of the Tory government can clear the way for ending the war and a solution to the Falklands crisis. At the moment, the Tories have the backing of the right-wing leaders of the Labour Party and the trade unions. Without it, they could not have gone to war...

...The Falklands war is not a reason for calling off the struggle against the Tories – on the contrary, the slaughter of the war and the additional drain on British capitalism, for which big business will try to make the workers pay, underlines the urgency of stepping up the struggle to bring down the Tory government.

The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. [The way our demands were formulated in this section reflects the fact that at that time Militant was a Marxist tendency in the Labour Party, which we still characterised as a bourgeois-workers’ party, though the leadership was moving rapidly to the right at that time (conducting an offensive to drive the Marxists out of the party). The "return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies" was based on the idea of a transformation of the party from below on the basis of mass working-class mobilisation and the adoption of a socialist programme.] Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The Junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism.'

Dub SWP concludes:
'No doubt your theoritical journals of the time made some correct marxists points, they always do, but god forbid your paper or members should confront the imperial nationalism of workers on the ground.... that would be ultra left.'

Unlike the SWP, the SP (and previously the Militant) never dumbs-down it's political position in its newspaper. Every political position outlined in the 'Militant International Review' was covered in the 'Militant' newspaper. The inability of the SWP to actually understand and analyse a political situation, from a Marxist perspective, is not our fault.

As for your comment about confronting 'the imperial nationalism of workers' - This shows how far removed from any understanding of Marxism that Dub SWP actually is.

(all the above quotes are from articles published at the time of the Falklands War).

by Revolutionary repeatist Fri Jun 29, 2007 20:32

Since we're on the subject - Hal Draper disposed of the shibboleth of "revolutionary defeatism" rather well in this article half a century ago:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1953/defeat/inde...x.htm

Well worth a read if yis can spare the time from having a go at each other...

by Ali Sun Jul 01, 2007 04:46

I wonder who it will be fashionable for you to "support" next week.
Viva the revolution! Long live Zapata/Stalin/Castro/Insert name here which makes you feel important and gives us something to talk about

by Aragon Mon Jul 02, 2007 15:20

Gabriele Zamparini has posted an interesting blog entry about the allged rise of attacks on homosexuals in Iran since the invasion.

"Who’s responsible for these "violent campaigns" against Iraqi gays and the "assassinations of homosexuals in Iraq"? The same actors who are conducting ethnic cleansing and mass murdering against Sunni, political opponents, Iraqi secularist and nationalist, both Muslim and Christian, both Sunni and Shia: the puppet Iraqi government installed by the US and supported by Iran, together with its militias, mainly Abdul Aziz al-Hakim’s Badr Brigades and Motqada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army [with the blessing of Ayatollah Sistani, the godfather of the sectarian Shia “government” curiously so much admired in some quarters of the Western left]."

http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/

by hmmmmm Mon Jul 02, 2007 16:17

but i sort of got through that along with the difficulty most people have getting through the relationship of aragon and cat - just to snide at the last comment - or euskal h, basque, navarra and biarritz. Thus I don't think it helps or offers much information to bring people to blogs reflectingly expertly on the alphabet soup of mininscule grouplets in the "al Q" sphere of blame or association. at least not till the SWP (the target of much attention as they organise their threads and keep their street cred & pretend they've an analysis) have a miltiary wing..,
That much said today the BBC (who arguably do have a military wing) are holding a special day and rally to call yet again fo the release of one of their journalists who was abducted on March 12th exactly 16 weeks ago.
Hamas from their new extra authority department of security in Gaza have announced that they have arrested hattab al-Maqdisi, a spokesman of the Army of Islam group who claim to hold the BBC journalist Alan Johnson.
oh! ah! gosh! but hamas didn't do this for the BBC even though if they get him release the BBC might say ta' very much for your coup oh no. Mr al-maqdisi opened fire on one of their patrols which as we know is an illegal use of force. The political wing of Hamas have previously warned the army of Islam that they want the BBC man released or they'll get serious...."any means neccesary"..... I don't know if the army of Islam has a political wing or if the military wing of Hamas pay attention to the political wing. I just see twelve year olds carrying big guns and firing them at their neighbours. Still we're making progress - they used to just throw stones & get done over by Israel tanks.

yep. maybe aragon's right. it's not too late for people to read a few blogs and know exactly what to say at the pub, starbucks or into a megaphone at the gpo.

another little group with another little logo but no political party.....

by L O Tue Jul 03, 2007 17:33

Step 1. Accept that an independant palestine fought for by Democratically elected Hamas is infinitley more progressive than brutal and evil colonialism, occupation and imperialism (the highest form of capitalism after all) by the west, israel and their puppets fatah. It the the palestinian peoples right, they voted for hamas and support them end of, who are you to deny them what they support?

Step 2. Under your wierd logic, no national liberation movement ever would be supported. Did you support the NLF's struggle against the USA in Vietnam? I mean they were stalinists weren't they? Therefore by your logic shouldn't be supported?

SUPPORT PALESTINE!!!
SUPPORT THE NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT!!!
SUPPORT HAMAS!!!!!

by Jim Higgins Tue Jul 03, 2007 17:43

Ah now Left Observer, can you not knock off with the capital letters and the exclamation marks? It doesn't make your points sound more convincing, it just makes you sound a bit hysterical, like you're trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you. If there's a case to be made for supporting Hamas, it can be made without shouting and banging your fist on the table. Please!!!

by PaddyK Wed Jul 04, 2007 00:02

The inevitable attack of the mighty Israeli army is on the way, the correction of Hamastan is pending, Linda Heard says on Znet:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2...13208

+++ According to a report in Britain's Sunday Times, Ehud Barak, a former Israeli prime minister who has recently been appointed defense secretary is planning to launch a major assault on Gaza to take Hamas out of the game once and for all. +++

The democratically elected majority party representing the Palestinian people is to be liquidated, no mention of the Hamas politicians already locked up in Israel's prisons this last year. Witness the Palestinian Election that sickened American Middle East Policy with true Democracy.

Hamas is to be finished off, once and for all, they now say. And with it, the people's election results of January 2006.

Linda Heard the writer admits that :

+++Through no fault of its own Hamas has little to offer the people of Gaza. Israel controls the borders, sea and air as well as the passage of goods. +++

And then Linda Heard proposes that,

+++ It may be a bitter pill to swallow for Hamas and for those Palestinians who voted for a Hamas-led government but Hamas should relinquish Gaza and back the emergency government on condition their militants aren't hunted down and their leadership is not targeted.+++

Relinquish Gaza ? To who? To the Fateh Contras? How could anyone in their right mind ask Hamas to surrender Gaza to the traitors that only do the outside bidding for Anti-Palestinian liquidation forces. Forces that will surely punish the Gaza peoples now in order to reinforce local Law of US , Israel Policy.

Linda Heard you have lost the plot when you say:

"The Palestinians desperately need a hero. Fatah needs someone capable of gluing their people back together and Mahmoud Abbas needs someone who can prop him up."

The Palestinians have Heroes in the Hamas soldiers protecting Gaza. They protect the Peace, if they had food and water to give to their people, then they would. There is no food and water, it is a human rights disgrace. Barak waits to attack and kill off Gaza society when his well fed and watered regular forces are ready to rampage.
Only Hamas remains to protect the people.

Strength and victory to Hamas.

Food and Water to the people of Gaza, not Israeli weapons and hatred. Solidarity with Hamas and Gaza.