user preferences

New Events

Mashriq / Arabia / Iraq

no event posted in the last week

Palestinian Parliamentary Elections: The Hamas Victory

category mashriq / arabia / iraq | imperialism / war | feature author Friday February 03, 2006 18:35author by Ilan Shalif - AATW (personal capacity) Report this post to the editors

or: The Machiavellian NaZionist scheme backfires

The Israeli ruling elite, who counted on the willingness of the PLO and Fatah to compromise in order to let them keep some of the territories occupied during the 1967 war (if pressed long enough), made a miscalculation. Part of these weakening efforts involved leniency towards the fundamentalist Hamas, that was supposed to substitute the nationalist tendency with a religious agenda. The effects of this strategy led simply to a weakening of the corrupt Palestinian authority to levels that became too high to control, giving the Israelis in return a more fundamentalist and less corrupt/bribable Hamas government.

An Israeli anarchist communist briefly examines the results of the elections to the Palestinian parliament which saw the defeat of the previous majority party, Fatah, in favour of the fundamentalist Hamas, running under the name of "Change and Reform".

[Italiano] [Português] [Türkçe] [Castellano] [Ellenika ] [Français]

An Israeli anarchist communist briefly examines the results of the elections to the Palestinian parliament which saw the defeat of the previous majority party, Fatah, in favour of the fundamentalist Hamas, running under the name of "Change and Reform".


Palestinian Parliamentary Elections:

The Hamas Victory

The Machiavellian NaZionist scheme backfires

The Israeli ruling elite, who counted on the willingness of the PLO and Fatah to compromise in order to let them keep some of the territories occupied during the 1967 war (if pressed long enough), made a miscalculation. Part of these weakening efforts involved leniency towards the fundamentalist Hamas, that was supposed to substitute the nationalist tendency with a religious agenda. The effects of this strategy led simply to a weakening of the corrupt Palestinian authority to levels that became too high to control, giving the Israelis in return a more fundamentalist and less corrupt/bribable Hamas government that has taken on itself both fundamentalism and the active struggle against the occupation from the religious point of view (the extreme nationalist aspect of the religious is not restricted to the Jewish religion...).

The modern Capitalist system is dependent on a capitalist class that dominates the State bureaucracy. When the capitalist system is imposed by ex-colonial rulers without a strong enough capitalist class, the State bureaucracy or the military elite take control. In the case of the Palestinian territories handed over to the rule of the returning PLO military and bureaucracy, there was no restraining influence from a strong, local capitalist class. Thus, the higher-level personnel among the returnees used corruption to enrich themselves and bribed the lower-level personnel to ensure their loyalty.

The working class and the peasants could only envy the new corrupt ruling elite. This system could not function properly as it was not independent of the Israeli occupation forces, who encouraged the growth of the fundamentalist Hamas.

Thus Hamas, who have distributed a lot of charity to the most needy, also through their NGO-like facilities in areas such as medical care, education and social services, behaved in what seemed to be a non-corrupt way, thereby managing to get plenty of sympathy votes, even from people who could not be considered as fundamentalists.

From the polls it seems that the voters of Fatah and Hamas did not differ so much where their level of religious fervour was concerned. But there were two other reasons not connected with religion that made people vote for Hamas: first, as a form of punishment of the corrupt Fatah group, and second, in support of their more systematic fight with Israel.

In addition, Fatah was so disorganized as a result of internal conflicts and the persistent assaults by Israeli forces, and was plagued with so many internal rivalries, that Hamas was able to increase the number of its MPs beyond that which its core of voters would normally allow.

Hamas itself is not monolithic. The main motivation of its core activists is to promote the Islamic religion, so they did use extreme national militancy for several years. However, there are many of them who would be willing to compromise with Israel and the imperial powers in order to keep themselves on top, or as an important factor.

It is not by chance that in one municipality in which Hamas won control the council a year ago, only Fatah candidates were elected, or that in the small village of Bil'in in which the nationalist popular committee for the struggle against the fence is doing such good work, Fatah obtained 20 votes more than Hamas.

Hamas achieved about 42.9% of the total votes in the present Palestinian elections. However, due to the disorganization of Fatah, and the election procedure - half (66 seats) elected in the proportional vote and half in the regional constituency vote (66) - they obtained 56% of the seats in the PNA parliament. Now they will have to decide (or split) if they want to use their new power to promote their fundamentalism using the Palestinian Authority system and stop the military resistance in return for legitimacy in the eyes of the main capitalist states.

Ilan S.

Article written for Anarkismo.net

author by nestor - Anarkismopublication date Thu Feb 02, 2006 21:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This article in Italian:

Related Link: http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2331
author by nestor - Anarkismopublication date Fri Feb 03, 2006 02:07author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This article in Portuguese:

Related Link: http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2332
author by ender y. - AKİpublication date Fri Feb 03, 2006 17:41author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Turkish translation:

Related Link: http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2336
author by safak - anarşist komünist inisiyatif (turkey)publication date Sat Feb 04, 2006 23:18author email safakkarakizil at yahoo dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

I am safak. I am a member of anarchist communist initiative in turkey. I would like to mail with Ilan Shalif if she/he will see this and prefer, about details of the event, and how it looks like from ısrael. my mail is:
safakkarakizil@yahoo.com

author by rkn - libcompublication date Thu Feb 09, 2006 00:17author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"or: The Machiavellian NaZionist scheme backfires"

*Alarm bells ringing*

'NaZionist'? - Come on anarkismo you can do better than that!

author by Nestor - Anarkismopublication date Thu Feb 09, 2006 01:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The expression "NaZionism" is not of our making. It is one coined and used by the author of the article, Ilan Shalif. Perhaps he will comment on his use of the term.

Nestor
Anarkismo.net editorial collective

author by Ilanpublication date Thu Feb 09, 2006 01:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I am not sure who coined the naZionism combination, but it is a short hand description of the family of political ideologies it is part of.

It is not based on the cooperation between the main stream of the Zionist establishment with other extreme nationalist ones.

It is based on the intimate knowledge of the Zionist spectrum of ideologies.

There was long years the Zionist movement was dominated by the national socialist Mapay - the Party of the Eretz Israel Workers.

Zionist movement even in cluded a national communists left and etreme pro capitalist right. All the spectrum supported a treat of the indegeneous Palestinians in a way not so far away from the Nazis before they put the jews in concentration and extermination camps.

Tho the extreme nationalist Zionism ideaology is more involved religious than the European extreme nationalist racists - they are not better.

In practice they are restricted by real politic so they do not behave the same.

author by RApublication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is just junk.
Yes, we can understand that Palestinians may have voted for Hamas because it seemed like the only option in the face of Fatah statelmate and corruption. But Hamas is also an openly anti-semitic organization, which should not be ignored -- it should be criticized. Hamas' Covenant quotes directly from the "Protocols of Elders of Zion" (a forgery that accused jews of planning world domination, and has been the basis of every anti-semitic view you can find, including the Nazis). When Hamas isn't openly quoting from the so-called "Protocols", they're regurgitating this garbarge about the world jewish conspiracy in their own words -- cause they believe that crap. (Just because they say "zionists" rather than "jews" doesn't mean they mean it. And anarchists should be much more critical of word play than they currently are.) Additionally, Hamas is avidly anti-Left, and anti-feminist and so forth.
I agree with the person above who objected to anarkismo publishing something with the word "NaZionism" which equates Nazism and Zionism. The bad "explanation" by Ilaf does not clarify nor excuse this violent combination. The so-called "family" that Nazism and Zionism "share" is an outrageous claim that anarchists should reject outright. Zionism is not a monolithic category. It encapsaltes those of the violent and oppressive Right to those of the Labor Zionist Left. It's another form of nationalism, and like all forms of nationalism it has its really bad side too. Can we please get over the reductionism, be critical of anti-semitism and reactionary oppressive forces, and have a real discussion?!

author by Ilan S. - AATWpublication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 19:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

RA Write:
> This is just junk.
>
The late religious Israeli profesor Ishaiahu Leibovitch coined the term "Jeudo-Nazis" to describe the people holding the ideology I called naZionism....

> Hamas is also an openly anti-semitic organization, which
> should not be ignored....

Hamas is an orthodox Islamic trend that despise all non-muslims but treat the christians and jews as much better than the other religious. It cannot be regarded as any other racist trend - including anti-semites as any one who converts to Islam becomes their equal.
>
> -- it should be criticized. Hamas' Covenant quotes directly from
> the "Protocols of Elders of Zion" (a forgery that accused jews of
> planning world domination, and has been the basis of every
> anti-semitic view you can find, including the Nazis).
>
The quoting from "Protocols of Elders of Zion" do not make reactionary Hamas any way near to the European racists who did the same. The stench of Hamas is entirely different from that of European and US racists.

> When Hamas isn't openly quoting from the so-called "Protocols",
> they're regurgitating this garbarge about the world jewish
> conspiracy in their own words -- cause they believe that crap.
>
Of course their description of the place organized Jewish communities is wrong, but it does not change the fact that there is a kind of international Jewish establishment that was supplying the means for the building of Israel and still backs its settler colonial activity.
>
> (Just because they say "zionists" rather than "jews" doesn't mean
> they mean it.
>
I wonder how lousy logic have RA. You can stretch the meaning of words as you wish, but it is hard to imagine any real anti-semite joining demonstration of the joint project of popular villages committees and the Israeli Anarchists Against The wall... The way the Hamas treat Israeli journalists is another way to get a glimpse of their mind.

> And anarchists should be much more critical of word play than
> they currently are.) Additionally, Hamas is avidly anti-Left, and
> anti-feminist and so forth.
>
They are orthodox Muslims with all the baggage - bad enough... no need to make them "anti-semites" (as they are themselves semites).

> I agree with the person above who objected to anarkismo
> publishing something with the word "NaZionism" which equates
> Nazism and Zionism. The bad "explanation" by Ilan does not
> clarify nor excuse this violent combination. The so-called
> "family" that Nazism and Zionism "share" is an outrageous claim
> that anarchists should reject outright.
>
It is outrageous fact that enlightened a racial minority Jews in Europe of previous centuries adopted the main objection of anti-semites to the presence of Jews in Europe.

If you care, you can trace the origin of Zionism to adopting the above claim about Jews in Europe by the founders of Zionism.
>
> Zionism is not a monolithic category. It encapsaltes those of the
> violent and oppressive Right to those of the Labor Zionist Left.
>
The Nazi party too had different trends in it. The "Labor Zionist Left" national socialist trends were the main tool for dispossesing the Palestinians from 80% of their land.
>
> It's another form of nationalism, and like all forms of nationalism
> it has its really bad side too.
>
Nationalism of any kind do not have any good side at all. Of cource not all nationalist trends are the same, but the settler colonialist ones are the worst. It was so in South Africa, Rhodesia, Australia, America (South and North), Europe and Asia.
>
> Can we please get over the reductionism, be critical of
> anti-semitism and reactionary oppressive forces, and have a real
> discussion?!
>
Real discussion is of value if you analize the processes you relate to - not just name callings.

author by publication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 02:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Ilan Writes:

1) "The late religious Israeli profesor Ishaiahu Leibovitch coined the term "Jeudo-Nazis" to describe the people holding the ideology I called naZionism...."

When it comes down to it, you're conflating Israelis with Nazis, which is the common neo-Nazi "argument."

2) Ilan tries to defend Hamas, arguing that they are not anti-semitic. He writes: "Hamas is an orthodox Islamic trend that despise all non-muslims but treat the christians and jews as much better than the other religious. It cannot be regarded as any other racist trend - including anti-semites as any one who converts to Islam becomes their equal."

Though if you actually read Hamas' Covenant you find comments about killing the jews. It says: "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews."

3) Ilan tries to defend Hamas' quoting of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" by saying that Hamas isn't as bad and is entirely different from European racists. Is this supposed to be a defense? And from the quote above, about the need for muslims to kill jews, can you really defend it? As an anarchist?!

4) Ilan takes the "empirical" approach. He writes: "there is a kind of international Jewish establishment that was supplying the means for the building of Israel and still backs its settler colonial activity." Many communities, including diasporic ones (such as the jews) have international institutions and the like. But Hamas makes jews the force behind everything from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution, and, common to most anti-semitic programs, the force of evil behind every problem today. This is the kind of demonization that Hamas does in its Covenant.

5) Ilan argues that anti-semites wouldn't support the struggles of Palestinians. I'm reminded of the time the white supremacist group, "White Revolution", came to town to show support for Palestinian solidarity week.

6) Ilan claims that muslims can't be anti-semites because they themselves are "semites." This is a rhetorical evasiveness. We know the term "anti-semitism" refers to an anti-jewish movement. It has that specificity, historically. The term was invented to concretize an anti-jewish movement in Germany. Now it continues across the world, in Muslim countries as well.

ok, enough. Ilan seems content reducing the conflict to a struggle of good versus evil. Overthrow "zionism" (whatever that is!) and we reach utopia. It's a bad demonization politics, based in a millenarian dream. But vulgar positions are unfortunately on the rise today. I hope anarchists don't fall for it.

author by Ilan S. - AATW, Matspenpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 19:17author address author phone Report this post to the editors

RA wrote:

> vulgar "anti-zionism" not helpful
>
The complete analizis of the settler colonialist project called "Zionism" was one of the best contributions of the Matspen
libertarian communist organization of Israel.

RA writes

> Ilan Writes:

> 1) "The late religious Israeli profesor Ishaiahu Leibovitch
> coined the term "Jeudo-Nazis" to describe the people
> holding the ideology I called naZionism...."
>
Any one who dismiss off hand the late professor Ishaiahu Leibovitch has nothing serious to contribute.

RA writes:
> When it comes down to it, you're conflating Israelis with
> Nazis, which is the common neo-Nazi "argument."
>
The only neo-Nazis who claim so are those sympathetic to Zionism and Israeli racist opinions of the Arabs....

RA writes:
> 2) Ilan tries to defend Hamas, arguing that they are not
> anti-semitic. He writes: "Hamas is an orthodox Islamic trend
> that despise all non-muslims but treat the christians and jews
> as much better than the other religious. It cannot be
> regarded as any other racist trend - including anti-semites as
> any one who converts to Islam becomes their equal."
>
It is not to "defend Hamas". It is just stating the real facts.

RA write:
> Though if you actually read Hamas' Covenant you find
> comments about killing the jews.
>
Sure they include killing people of religious oposition to Islam - that is the the position of all fundamentalists towards religious enemies.
>
> It says: "The hour of judgment shall not come until the
> Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide
> behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say:
> 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me,
> come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the
> tree of the Jews."
So what? Is it because of fundamentalist Muslim religion or because of anti-semitic racism. In the long history the muslim authorities accepted Jewish converts to Islam wholeheartedly.

When the Jews within them accepted the role the Islam relegated to them they had usually better life than Jews who lived among the various Christians...

The vicious attack of Hamas and other Muslims on Jews are the same as they regard Christians and others who refuse to accept the status the Islam gives them as second rate citizens.
RA write
> 3) Ilan tries to defend Hamas' quoting of the "Protocols of
> the Elders of Zion" by saying that Hamas isn't as bad and is
> entirely different from European racists.
>
It is not that I tried to defend Hamas - they are enemies period.
I just tried to expose a naZionist apologeticist who twists facts to help his reactionary cause.

RA asks
> Is this supposed to be a defense?
>
Of course not. It is regarded by RA as a defence because it refutes his naZionist apologetics.

RA writes
> And from the quote
> above, about the need for muslims to kill jews, can you really > defend it? As an anarchist?!
>
It seems RA does not discern between facts and fiction.
By accepting the naZionist complaints about the anti-semitism of Hamas, one helps naZionists to recruit support for their harsh suppression of the Palestinian working people.
RA writes
> 4) Ilan takes the "empirical" approach. He writes: "there is a
> kind of international Jewish establishment that was supplying
> the means for the building of Israel and still backs its settler
> colonial activity." Many communities, including diasporic
> ones (such as the jews) have international institutions and
> the like. But Hamas makes jews the force behind everything
> from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution, and,
> common to most anti-semitic programs,
>
In the course of logic for beginners, we learned that one of the most common logical mistakes is "Pars Par Toto" - regarding entities as identical because of a similarity in some aspects.

To claim that the behavior of Hamas is so because they are anti-semites is a wild digression from fact.

By the way, though it is a gross exageration, people from the Jewish communities did contribute in a big way to the destruction of the feudal system in Europe.
>
RA writes
> the force of evil behind every problem today. This is the kind > of demonization that Hamas does in its Covenant.

So what? No one claims Hamas are progressive people or liberals. They are just a reactionary religious fundamentalist movement that the Israeli state promoted as competitors to the nationalist semi-secular Fatah. This strategy backfired when Hamas joined the militant struggle against Israeli occupation to advance the religious cause.

RA writes:
> 5) Ilan argues that anti-semites wouldn't support the
> struggles of Palestinians.
>
No, I did not make such a stupid statement.
A lot of rectionary people hold that the enemy of my enemy is a friend. It is not beyond Nazis and other anti-semites to cooperate with Palestinians because they are in conflict with the Jewish state. Becuse of said logic, some Palestinian nationalists cooperated with German Nazis.

RA Writes:
> I'm reminded of the time the white supremacist group,
> "White Revolution", came to town to show support for
> Palestinian solidarity week.
>
So what? They joined them because they oppose Israel - not because of ideological identity.....
>
> 6) Ilan claims that muslims can't be anti-semites because
> they themselves are "semites." This is a rhetorical
> evasiveness.
>
No it is not. Racism is based on specific ideology.
Anti-semitism is not just opposing Jews because of any reason - it is a specific objection to the Jews because they are racially different, "semites" and not "aryans" or "slavs".
>
RA wrote:
> We know the term "anti-semitism" refers to an anti-jewish
> movement. It has that specificity, historically. The term was
> invented to concretize an anti-jewish movement in Germany.
>
There are people who hold their ignorance as a high flag.
The objection to the presence of Jews in Europe is much older than that.

The Protocols of Elders of Zion was a Russian product.
The German Nazis put forward the racist rationale for objection to the Jews, so it was not just an anti-jewish movement.
>
> Now it continues across the world, in Muslim countries as
> well.

People who are really interested in the subject can read the book "Zionism against the Jews"...
>
> ok, enough. Ilan seems content reducing the conflict to a
> struggle of good versus evil.
>
No, it is not. I want the opposite. I demand from comrades to get into a more serious analysis of the relevant processes, instead of regarding all blacks as the same.

If I did not smell in RA's lines a kind of naZionist apology, I would not bother to respond.
>
RA writes:
> Overthrow "zionism" (whatever that is!) and we reach utopia.
>
The essence of Zionism is the settler colonialist project in Palestine. It is reaching its natural end soon.

The majority of Israeli Jews already agree to put an end to it.
The struggle for a more egalitarian treatment of the Palestinians will take more than 5 years to happen. It depends a lot on the economic boom that is starting here following the end of the settler colonialist project of Zionism.

Long ago we assessed that the end of Zionist settler colonialism will be stopped only by a social revolution of the whole region. We were wrong. The globalization of capitalism and the flourishing of Israeli capitalism which has an interest in conflict with settler colonialism seems to do it now.
>

author by publication date Fri Mar 17, 2006 01:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

OK, there's a lot of different things involved in this discussion. I'll try to cut to the main and underlying disagreement, and try to explain why I find Ilan's position so harmful.

I think the main point can be summarized in Ilan's remark: "If I did not smell in RA's lines a kind of naZionist apology, I would not bother to respond."

Ilan believes I am a "NaZionist apologist." What does this mean? There's a lot wrapped up in this jargon.

It means that any criticism of Hamas as ideologically antisemitic, should not be taken serioulsy, because it is just an "ideological weapon of zionists."

For Ilan, Hamas' ideology is not antisemitic, but just "fundamentalist." The direction of this logic is that there is no antisemitism, and any mention of it should be ignored. This is the position of some anti-zionists such as Michael Neuman, who says that "we should never take charges of antisemitism seriously, and in fact, we should have some fun with it." How has it become "fun" for the Left and anarchists to joke about oppressive ideas and activities?!

While Ilan argues that Hamas is equally as bad if not worse to other groups, he ignores the way in which jews are placed at the center of an ideological worldview, whereby they play a specifically demonic role, dating back centuries. That jews are behind all bad historical changes and events. And the killing of jews is part of one's duty in redeeming the world. (This can all be found in Hamas' Covenant -- which you can find at http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP109206)

The unfortunate reality is that oppositional movements are not necessarily progressive. That's the shitty reality we face. And I thought it was anarchists who were the ones to hold onto a critical orientation toward "resistance" when Marxists and socialists were so eager to make alliances with any oppressive oppositional movement that emerged? Have anarchists also succumbed to the simple worldview of uncritical support of resistance? Of an either-or worldview? Of a new Cold War ideology? Of "you're either with us or against us," without any care for distinctions, nuances, or problematics?

The reason for his Ilan's refusal to recognize Hamas' antisemitic ideology -- like so many others on the Left -- is that he thinks that any charges of antisemitism are necessarily defenses of Israeli aggression, dispossession, occupation, and so forth. (I'm going to refrane from his loaded and irresponsible use of jargon such as "zionism" and "nazionism," for the sake of clarity.)

I think that the refusal to criticize antisemitic is hugely problematic, and probably reveals anarchists' lack of engagement with the history of antisemitism and its specificity as an ideological worldview of demonization that mobilizes oppositional movements in oppressive ways.

I also think it reveals the weakness of anarchists to differentiate between 1) charges of antisemitism that are used to insulate the policies of the State of Israel from criticism, and 2) charges that seek to reveal antisemitic themes, worldviews, and ideologies in order to change discourses, and to contribute to the creation of oppositional movements that are progressive, Left, and hopefully libertarian.

So Ilan's whole position relies on a reductionism whereby any charges of antisemitism are rejected outright, no matter what the charge is. Those who charge it are dismissed as "zionists" or "apologists." No honest engagement with the substance of the charge is ever addressed.

This is a defensiveness without a defense. Reaction without position. The left and anarchists must be critical of antisemitism, or their politics become hollow.

author by Ilan S.publication date Sat Mar 18, 2006 02:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

NA writes:
no thanks to reductionist politics by Thursday, Mar 16 2006, 5:35pm
OK, there's a lot of different things involved in this discussion. I'll try to cut to the main and underlying disagreement, and try to explain why I find Ilan's position so harmful.

Ilan
A decent person may disagree with analisys... May even "expose" inconsistancies or untruth, but to claim an opinion "is harmful" ?

NA write:
I think the main point can be summarized in Ilan's remark: "If I did not smell in RA's lines a kind of naZionist apology, I would not bother to respond."

Ilan believes I am a "NaZionist apologist." What does this mean? There's a lot wrapped up in this jargon.

Ilan
Twisting my words do not represent truthful responce.
There are not just black and white.

Shades of "NaZionist apologist" is not equal to full blowen NaZionist apologist.

NA
It means that any criticism of Hamas as ideologically antisemitic, should not be taken serioulsy, because it is just an "ideological weapon of zionists."

Ilan
No - it means analisis and exposer of Hamas need anarchist point of view and not the garbage NA peddle.
The Hamas is reactionary fundamentalist movement with appropriate muslem fundamentalist ideology.

Its relation to Israel and its Jerwish supporter is secondary and functional.

NA write
For Ilan, Hamas' ideology is not antisemitic, but just "fundamentalist." The direction of this logic is that there is no antisemitism, and any mention of it should be ignored.

Ilan
Just logical garabage I will not continue responding next time.
Hamas ideology is not "just antisemitic" as naZionists apologetics clame. It is a muslim fundamentalist ideology withspecific added reference to Israel and its supporters as
it took the military road in opposing Israeli occupation.
To reduce Hamas to "just antisemitic" is exposing the pro
Israeli point of view of a not serious person.

NA
This is the position of some anti-zionists such as Michael Neuman, who says that "we should never take charges of antisemitism seriously, and in fact, we should have some fun with it." How has it become "fun" for the Left and anarchists to joke about oppressive ideas and activities?!

Ilan
Michael Newman is a pain in the ass of naZionist apologetics as they cannot expect others to accept labeling him as antisemite because he is one of many Jews objecting to naZionism in the open.

NA write
While Ilan argues that Hamas is equally as bad if not worse to other groups, he ignores the way in which jews are placed at the center of an ideological worldview, whereby they play a specifically demonic role, dating back centuries. That jews are behind all bad historical changes and events. And the killing of jews is part of one's duty in redeeming the world. (This can all be found in Hamas' Covenant -- which you can find at http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP109206)

Ilan
It is probably there. But like most other positions of reactionary movements it is just a position paper - not the essence of the movement.
NA still forget Israel state promoted the same Hamas movement as competitor to the secular nationalist Fatah and PLO.

it was Zionism declared by the Unaited Nation as a rachist......

NA
The unfortunate reality is that oppositional movements are not necessarily progressive. That's the shitty reality we face. And I thought it was anarchists who were the ones to hold onto a critical orientation toward "resistance" when Marxists and socialists were so eager to make alliances with any oppressive oppositional movement that emerged?

Ilan
oppositional movements are oppositional movements. Each of them has its own roots, enemies, aims, etc.

Labeling such movements as "good" or "bad" is an authoritatian point of view. Real analisis is needed to have a worthy opinion and actions regarding each of them.

NA write:
Have anarchists also succumbed to the simple worldview of uncritical support of resistance? Of an either-or worldview? Of a new Cold War ideology? Of "you're either with us or against us," without any care for distinctions, nuances, or problematics?

Ilan
NA is of course not anarchist and do not know the differences between various opinions their holders label themselves as anarchists.

NA
The reason for his Ilan's refusal to recognize Hamas' antisemitic ideology -- like so many others on the Left -- is that he thinks that any charges of antisemitism are necessarily defenses of Israeli aggression, dispossession, occupation, and so forth.

Ilan
My objection to the clumsy naZionist apologetic of NA to
label Hamas' ideology as antisemitic is because it miss the main reactionary nature of Hamas, and treat too lightly
real antisemitism and rachism.

NA write
(I'm going to refrane from his loaded and irresponsible use of jargon such as "zionism" and "nazionism," for the sake of clarity.)

Ilan
It is for the sake of demagogy and evading the facts - including the racism of main stream Zionism which is
much more simmilar to the clasical Nazism than that of the Hamas. NaZinism cannot take the label "antisemitism" because of the same logic Hamas cannot take it - because they are both held by Semites,,,,

NA
I think that the refusal to criticize antisemitic is hugely problematic, and probably reveals anarchists' lack of engagement with the history of antisemitism and its specificity as an ideological worldview of demonization that mobilizes oppositional movements in oppressive ways.

Ilan
Anarchists struggle agains Nazist and other antisemites where ever they are.
Anarchists struggle agains reactionaries of other kinds wherever they are.... but mixing between various reactinaries is counter productive.

NA write
I also think it reveals the weakness of anarchists to differentiate between 1) charges of antisemitism that are used to insulate the policies of the State of Israel from criticism, and 2) charges that seek to reveal antisemitic themes, worldviews, and ideologies in order to change discourses, and to contribute to the creation of oppositional movements that are progressive, Left, and hopefully libertarian.

Charging fundamental reactionary religious movements who oppose Israel as antisemites because of superficial aspects of their propaganda is futile. The real antisemitism is an aspect of racism mainly. When the extreme murderous nationalist onslout involve people of the same race or nation like in ex-Yoguslavia and Palestine, or even Iraq, you better do not use the wrong label and confound the analisis.

NA write
So Ilan's whole position relies on a reductionism whereby any charges of antisemitism are rejected outright, no matter what the charge is. Those who charge it are dismissed as "zionists" or "apologists." No honest engagement with the substance of the charge is ever addressed.

Ilan
It seems the egocentric NA thinks my efforts in writing was to make him wiser...

It was just a mean for shading light on a local reactionary movement the Hamas...

NA
This is a defensiveness without a defense. Reaction without position. The left and anarchists must be critical of antisemitism, or their politics become hollow.

Ilan
Any one who put "Anarchists" in the same category of "left" is not the holder of any kind of serious political


THE END
add your comments

Number of comments per page
  
 
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
© 2005-2024 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]