******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
This was a FB post by Amal Saad, a Professor of Political Science, Lebanese University and author of works on Hizbullah. She is okay with smearing Syrian rebels as terrorists but is uncomfortable with people like Paul Antonopoulos or Tim Anderson doing so as well:
I know a lot of people are going to hate me for saying this, but it needs to be said: The "Resistance Axis" camp needs to engage in some self-reflection and realize that a significant portion of its adherents are aligned with right-wing fascist movements in the West, and are pinning their hopes on the likes of Le Pen; these are the same people who previously wagered on Trump. This disturbing alliance is neither strategic nor ideologically defensible.
1) As the Trump regime has demonstrated, there is no guarantee that a right-wing government will conduct a ME policy any different from a liberal/Democratic one. In fact, these movements are as beholden to Israel and Saudi Arabia, if not more, than the liberals, and by extension are even more hostile to Iran and Hizbullah than them.
2) In supporting the right, not only are we condoning racism, Islamophobia, misogyny, xenophobia etc. we are treating them as though they are less dangerous and lesser injustices than the sectarian policies supported by liberals. How is Islamophobia and xenophobia a better guarantee for minority rights than sectarianism? Many in this camp have prioritized the protection of minorities and secularism, while completely losing sight the initial reason Hizbullah and Iran supported the Assad government: resistance to imperialism and Israel. What is more, how can there be room for Islamophobia in this camp when Syria's key allies--Iran, the Iraqi PMU and Hizbullah--are Islamists?
3) Even if people aren't familiar with progressive values, they merely need look to Hizbullah for some guidance on this. Look at Hizb's cautious embrace of Russia, who Nasrallah described as an ally but "NOT part of the Resistance Axis" because of its ties to Israel. Hizbullah doesn't even consider the Iraqi government as part of this Axis, because of its ties to the US, only the PMU. Moreover, Nasrallah has decried the dangers of xenophobia and racism against Syrian refugees. Back in 2009, Hizb even refused to meet with Jimmy Carter, although Hamas did, because it rejected any association with the US political establishment. And he was hardly a right wing racist nut.
4) How can we consider ourselves "free" once we liberate Syria from the Takfiri scourge if we did so with the help of the West's alt-right, who consider colonialism "a good thing" as Le Pen recently declared? How are we free from imperialism if this is how we achieve victory? We are so focused on "freedom from" that we have lost sight of what we want to be "free for." A "cause" that isn't anchored in a wider theoretical and ideological framework, i.e. a progressive solidarity movement that sees its interests aligned with the interests of the working poor, the refugees, African-Americans, Muslims and other minorities in the US and Europe, and the oppressed of the global South, is not a cause anymore but a movement that just seeks to "win." A cause that relies on the enemies of the oppressed is no longer a cause but is reduced to narrow, parochial interests, a movement that wants "Our Team" to win no matter the price.
_________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
