The [European] Left and Islamic Resistance

A follow up to this post, albeit from a different point of view.

Excerpts below from a speech by Nadine Rosa-Rosso, a Brussels-based independent Marxist, at The Beirut International Forum for Resistance, Anti-Imperialism, Solidarity between Peoples and Alternatives, held from January 16 to 18, 2009 ( full text also here):

The massive demonstrations in European capitals and major cities in support of the people of Gaza highlighted once again the core problem: the vast majority of the Left, including communists, agrees in supporting the people of Gaza against Israeli aggression, but refuses to support its political expressions such as Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Left not only refuses to support them, but also denounces them and fights against them. Support for the people of Gaza exists only at a humanitarian level but not at the political level.

...

At all the demonstrations I participated in Brussels, I asked some demonstrators to translate the slogans that were chanted in Arabic, and they did so with pleasure every time. I heard a lot of support for the Palestinian resistance and denunciation of Arab governments (in particular the Egyptian President Mubarak), Israel's crimes, and the deafening silence of the international community or the complicity of the European Union. In my opinion, these were all political slogans quite appropriate to the situation. But surely some people only hear Allah-u-akbar and form their opinion on this basis. The very fact that slogans are shouted in Arabic is sometimes enough to irritate the Left. For example, the organizing committee of the meeting of 11 January was concerned about which languages would be used. But could we not have simply distributed the translations of these slogans? This might be the first step towards mutual understanding. When we demonstrated in 1973 against the pro-American military takeover by Pinochet in Chile, no one would have dared to tell the Latin American demonstrators "Please, chant in French!” In order to lead this fight, we all learnt slogans in Spanish and no one was offended.

...
If we would agree to stop staring blindly and with prejudice at the religious beliefs of people, we would perhaps "learn to understand" why the Arab and Muslim masses, who today demonstrate for Palestine, are screaming ‘Down with Mubarak’, an Arab and Muslim leader, and why they jubilantly shout the name of Chavez, a Christian-Latin American leader. Doesn’t this make it obvious that the Arab and Muslim masses frame their references not primarily through religion but by the relation of leaders to US and Zionist Imperialism?

And if the Left would formulate the issue in these terms, would they not partly regain the support of the people that formerly gave the Left its strength?

Another cause of paralysis of the Left in the anti-imperialist struggle is the fear of being associated with terrorism.

On the 11th of January 2009, the president of the German Chamber of Representatives, Walter Momper, the head of the parliamentarian group of ‘Die Grüne’ (the German Greens), Franziska Eichstädt-Bohlig, a leader of ‘Die Linke’, Klaus Lederer, and others held a demonstration in Berlin with 3000 participants to support Israel under the slogan ‘stop the terror of Hamas’. One must keep in mind that Die Linke are considered by many in Europe as the new and credible alternative Left, and an example to follow.

The entire history of colonisation and decolonisation is the history of land that has been stolen by military force and has been reclaimed by force. From Algeria to Vietnam, from Cuba to South-Africa, from Congo to Palestine: no colonial power ever renounced to its domination by means of negotiation or political dialogue alone.

Nadine's criticism is powerful because it comes from an athiest, European, leftist who is able to take a step back and point out the racist, islamophobic, and imperialist glasses through which the European 'left' views the world, wether they realize it or not.

This is important to take into consideration when discussing not only global protests and resistance to Zionism/neocolonialism but also the status and 'integration' of Muslims in Europe.

Finally, comments below from a I.K. (thanks for forwarding speech and comments!), in relation to US 'Left':

One additional comment I would add, is that it is important to note that the author is characterizing major trends of the "European Left" specifically "traditional" Marxist/Communist political organizing which has a long history there. There are, however, some elements of "Third Worldist" leftists that view Islamists in a more positive way.

In the USA, this could be seen reflected in the differences between UFPJ (which has its organizing base in the much older Communist Party of the United States (CP USA) and ANSWER (which currently has its organizing base in the Party for Socialism and Liberation; but before the 2004 split, in the Workers World Party).

Traditional Marxists (like many in Europe) do not see beyond "class" as an organizing unit, neglecting the national aspirations of Third World nations that may very well organize beyond "class" including the use of religion.

The Doha deal: another defeat for US policy in the Middle East

The US better get used to the new rules of the game. Interesting article in the International Herald Tribune, excerpts below:

The accord that has resolved the immediate political crisis in Lebanon is the latest example of the new political power equation that is redefining the Middle East. It reflects both local and global forces, and 18 years after the Cold War ended, provides a glimpse of what the post-Cold War world will look like - at least in the Middle East.

Several dynamics seem to be at play, but one stands out as paramount: We are witnessing the clear limits of the projection of American global power, combined with the assertion and coexistence of multiple regional powers (Turkey, Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, Saudi Arabia, etc.). These local powers tend to fight and negotiate at the same time, and ultimately prefer to make reasonable compromises rather than perpetually wage absolutist battles.

The Doha accord for Lebanon was much more than simply a victory for Iranian-backed Hezbollah over the American-backed alliance. It is the first concrete example in the Arab world of a negotiated, formal political agreement by local adversaries to share power and make big national decisions collectively, while maintaining close strategic relationships with diverse external patrons in the United States, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The Lebanese agreement (unlike the failed Fatah-Hamas unity government) is likely to succeed because all the parties know that to live together peacefully they must make mutual compromises. This accord has been forged in the furnace of Middle Eastern demographic and political realism, in contrast to the hallucinatory absolutism that often drives American-Israeli policy in this region.

This is not a full defeat for the United States - it's more like a draw. It puts into concrete political form the most powerful force that has defined the Middle East in recent decades: the willingness of individuals, political movements and some governments to openly defy, challenge, resist and occasionally to fight the United States, Israel and their Arab and other allies.

Continue here

I do not think it is fair to compare this deal to the one between Fatah and Hamas because the two situations are very different. For one thing, only a very small part of Lebanon is under Israeli occupation. Plus, the power and resources of Hamas are not comparable to those of Hizbullah.

But back to Lebanon - the deal is definately historical and is another blow to the US and its allies. The wisdom of the Lebanese resistance and opposition parties has gotten the Lebanese out of a very critical situation.

Congratulations Lebanon!