Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

August 1, 2014

Saudi Arabia joins the Axis of Resistance

Filed under: Palestine,Syria — louisproyect @ 6:02 pm

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani shakes hands with Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Tehran, Abdul Rahman Bin Garman Al Shahri on March 3, 2014. Credit: ISNA/Hamid Forootan

Yesterday the NY Times reported on the closing of the ranks of Arab dictatorships against Hamas and the people of Gaza:

After the military ouster of the Islamist government in Cairo last year, Egypt has led a new coalition of Arab states — including Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — that has effectively lined up with Israel in its fight against Hamas, the Islamist movement that controls the Gaza Strip. That, in turn, may have contributed to the failure of the antagonists to reach a negotiated cease-fire even after more than three weeks of bloodshed.

“The Arab states’ loathing and fear of political Islam is so strong that it outweighs their allergy to Benjamin Netanyahu,” the prime minister of Israel, said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Wilson Center in Washington and a former Middle East negotiator under several presidents.

One wonders why the Times did not mention another member of the coalition. By now it should be obvious that no leader is more committed to the war against “political Islam” than Bashar al-Assad as the Huffington Post reported on July 11, 2013:

In an interview with a state-run newspaper Thursday, Assad said “Arab identity” was back on the right track after the fall from power of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which he contends had used religion for its own political gain.

Assad’s comments to the Al-Baath newspaper, the mouthpiece of his ruling Baath party, came a week after Egypt’s military ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi as millions took to the streets to urge his removal. Morsi was Egypt’s first freely elected president.

Assad calls the revolt against him an international conspiracy carried out by Islamist groups such as the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood – a branch of the Egyptian group with the same name to which Morsi belongs.

“The Muslim Brotherhood and those who are like them take advantage of religion and use it as a mask,” Assad said. “They consider that when you don’t stand with them politically, then you are not standing with God.”

Now of course this might be a bit of a paradox for those who have long argued that a Saudi Arabia acting in cahoots with the CIA was spearheading a drive to impose “political Islam” on the Arab world and mostly in Syria as stage one in an assault on Iran and then on—who knows—Russia. This article has been published in one form or another at least a thousand times in “anti-imperialist” websites.

Yet this argument can only be made by ignoring the evidence that the USA has made it clearer than ever that it sees Bashar al-Assad as a lesser evil to any of the forces opposed to him. It also ignores the rather obvious evidence of a thaw not only between the USA and Iran, but one between Iran and Saudi Arabia, as the National Interest pointed out in a May 15, 2014 article:

The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, has announced an invitation to his Iranian counterpart to visit Saudi Arabia. This development is unsurprising, and it is welcome. It follows visits that Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif made a few months ago to some of the other Arab members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Rapprochement between Iran and its Arab neighbors is good for the neighbors as well as for Iranians, good for stability in the Persian Gulf, and good for U.S. interests in the region.

A careful reader might wonder how the Times would characterize Saudi Arabia’s opposition to “political Islam” when there is supposedly a preponderance of evidence that it has funded jihadist groups, most especially al Qaeda. Back in January WSWS.org, the website most committed to the USA-Saudi Arabia-al Qaeda axis theory, told its readers: “The Saudi regime has responded to the US postponement of war plans against Syria by pressing for stepped-up aid to the Al Qaeda-linked Syrian opposition, while arming itself to prepare for domestic repression.”

One wonders how such simple-minded assertions can be made without at least making the effort to account for the real as opposed to fictional relationship between al Qaeda and the Saudi monarchy. In February 2006 al Qaeda organized an assault on a Saudi refinery that was thwarted by security forces. Al Qaeda issued a statement hailing the abortive attack: “With grace from God alone, hero mujahideen from the squadron of Sheikh Osama bin Laden succeeded today (Friday)…in penetrating a plant for refining oil and gas in the town of Abqaiq in the eastern part of the peninsula, and then allowed two car bombs in driven by two martyrdom seekers.” Six years later the campaign was continuing as the BBC reported:

Saudi Arabia’s continuing campaign against al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism has enjoyed considerable success. The atmosphere in the country is noticeably more relaxed than it was a few years ago when the kingdom was buffeted by several major suicide bombings.

But the arrest earlier this month of eight men accused of plotting terror attacks in Riyadh and Jeddah is proof that the campaign is not over. As one Saudi newspaper editorial put it: “Renewed vigilance is required.”

Of the eight men arrested in the latest sweep, two were Saudis and the other six were Yemenis. There seems little doubt that the terror plot was hatched in Yemen.

With respect to Saudi support for its own proxy in Syria, the Islamic Front, it is necessary to point out that there are Saudi billionaires willing to back such formations whatever the stated policy of the monarchy. When Osama bin-Laden put up his own money to back jihadists across the planet, he was not acting on orders from the regime but on his own beliefs. In fact it was the decision of the Saudi monarchy in 1990 to provide a base for American troops entering the war against Iraq that initially led to bin Laden’s breach with the royalty and to his jihadist turn.

The hostility to the Muslim Brotherhood is based on other factors since the group never posed a direct threat to the monarchy. Despite this, the monarchy had no problem amalgamating it with al Qaeda linked groups as the BBC reported in March:

Saudi Arabia has formally designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation.

An interior ministry statement also classified two jihadist groups fighting with the Syrian rebels – the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant – as terrorist groups.

The statement gave Saudis fighting in Syria 15 days to return.

A royal decree issued last month said any citizen found guilty of fighting in conflicts abroad faced a jail sentence.

Last month, King Abdullah decreed jail terms of up to 20 years for anyone belonging to “terrorist groups” or fighting abroad.

Who knows what an imbecile from WSWS.org would say about this? Probably that this was a “false flag” measure meant to deflect attention from the secret operation Saudi Arabia was mounting in Syria to topple al-Assad. After all, these are people who maintain that Joseph Hansen, Trotsky’s bodyguard, was a GPU agent who facilitated his assassination without any proof.

There are those on the left who would have to hail Saudi Arabia as comrades if you follow the logic of opposing “political Islam” to its insane conclusions. If the categorical imperative is to block the rise of jihadists in the Middle East and to rally around those governments most committed to that task, then naturally you would see Bashar al-Assad as an exemplar.

The constellation of forces grouped around the Baathists represent an Axis of Resistance according to Phil Greaves, a British leftist who claims that you can find within its ranks: President al-Maliki of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Russia “acting in a minimally supportive role.” Of course, those enduring Russian-supplied bombs and missiles in Homs or Aleppo might have problems with “minimally supportive” but why quibble?

Greaves sticks to the jihadists as pawns of Washington narrative like white on rice:

These actors primarily responsible for the fall of Mosul and the anticipated partition of Iraq are the de facto regional clients of dominant imperialism – ISIS are merely the shock-troop proxies that implement such policy, creating “facts on the ground” when diplomacy and old-fashioned economic coercion no longer suffice.

As is so often the case with those more interested in writing propaganda than serious political analysis, Greaves has nothing to say about the oppression of Sunnis that led to the fall of Mosul and large swaths of Iraq. In a bravura stroke of gross stupidity, Greaves denies that the Maliki government upholds “sectarian policies”. To state otherwise is to promulgate a “false concept”. This, I suppose, is the consequence of committing yourself to an analysis based on blind loyalty to a degraded “anti-imperialism” bereft of class distinctions.

This finally leads us to the question of the Muslim Brotherhood itself. Unless you are open to see this movement dialectically, you are better off avoiding Middle East politics if not politics altogether. In “Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam”, Robert Dreyfuss—the Nation Magazine editor who covers the Middle East—portrays it as a CIA tool against nationalist and Communist influences in the region. Drawing from the arguments made in the book, Dreyfuss advised Mother Jones readers:

For the next five decades, the Muslim Brotherhood would serve as a battering ram against nationalists and communists. Despite the Brothers’ Islam-based anti-imperialism, the group often ended up making common cause with the colonial British. It functioned as an intelligence agency, infiltrating left-wing and nationalist groups. But it was also fiercely independent, at times clashing violently with the ruling authorities. On several occasions, Ikhwan assassins murdered top Egyptian officials, including Prime Minister Mahmoud Fahmi al-Nuqrashi in 1948.

This is the same kind of charge that has been leveled against Hamas, namely that Israel allowed its growth as a lesser evil to the PLO. I suppose if your method of judging political movements is based solely on their ties to the USA or Israel at a given moment in its history you would have to view the MB and Hamas as the enemy.

But there’s another more important dimension, namely how they relate to the masses they are accountable to. The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas’s problem was that in the eyes of the Saudi monarchs, the Zionists, and the Egyptian generals they were too plebeian and too unreliable. This was a function largely of their middle-class composition. Too closely tied to “the street”, the MB was never capable of serving the interests of big capital to the degree that was necessary. Hence it had to go.

Hamas is now suffering the consequences of being insufficiently subservient to Israeli demands. As opposed to the shibboleth about Jews being driven into the sea, Hamas and the population it represents certainly faces the existential threat of being expelled from Gaza just as Palestinians as a whole were expelled from their homeland in the original nakba.

One imagines that Bashar al-Assad will rub his hands in glee as Hamas gets its just desserts. After all they had the temerity to side with the Syrian revolution until desperation forced them to adopt a posture of neutrality. In 2011 Hamas deputy foreign minister Ghazi Hamad said “We supported the Syrian regime as long as it was fighting the Israeli enemy but when it oppressed its people we decided to part ways with it, despite the fact that this is considered a big loss for Hamas.” That took a lot of guts.

There’s nothing that Bashar al-Assad hates more than plebeian movements such as Hamas or the MB. That is something he obviously picked up from his father who served American interests despite a patina of “anti-imperialist” rhetoric. Like father, like son. Bashar al-Assad has been punishing the Palestinians at Yarmouk for the better part of two years, imposing a siege that has left people without food, medicine and other necessities–not to speak of bombing and shelling them indiscriminately as the need arises. Hafez al-Assad developed a finely honed skill for murdering Palestinians in Lebanon as Marah al-Baqa’i reported in Middle East Monitor:

At the end of June 1976, Syrian forces aligned themselves with extreme Christian sects of the time, as they cooperated to impose a frightening siege on Tel El-Zataar, a Palestinian refugee camp. The blockade lasted two months and the camp, which was home to 20,000 Palestinians and 15,000 Lebanese, were subject to violence and collective punishment. During this time, food and other basic supplies were prohibited from entering the camp. Approximately 5,500 shells fell atop the heads of civilians and the Red Cross was strictly prohibited from entering the premises.

On the night of August 14, 1976, Hafez Al-Assad’s forces stormed the camp, which had been weakened by hunger, fear and fatigue and they committed one of the most grotesque massacres that claimed the lives of more than 3,000 Palestinians who fell victim to systematic violence. These militias marched under the guise of the Syrian government. They committed unfathomable crimes such as slitting the stomachs of pregnant women, massacring children and the elderly, as well as committing sexual assaults and looting.

In one of his boldest efforts against “political Islam” that clearly served as an inspiration for his son’s scorched earth policies, Hafez al-Assad took the fight to the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama in 1982. Nearly 20 years earlier Hafez al-Assad took part in a coup that ultimately led to the formation of a family dynasty that is the longest in the Middle East. Among its measures was a banning of the Muslim Brotherhood after the fashion of its banning in Egypt last year. In an even more draconian fashion, membership was ultimately punishable by death. In a purely defensive measure, the MB organized an armed resistance and just as is occurring now, the Baathists used every means at its disposal to put it down, including mass murder.

In 1982 Syrian tanks and jets pulverized Hama, a city that had been taken over by the MB after the fashion of revolts seen in 2011 and 2012, including one in Hama once again. Al Jazeera reported on the blitzkrieg directed against Hama. One can certainly imagine the IDF and Bashar al-Assad studying it for useful ideas about how to put down similar rebellions in Gaza or Aleppo:

It was February 2, 1982, when troops, ordered by the late President Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, seized the city, and bombed its centre with fighter jets, according to an Amnesty International report, enabling tanks to roll through Hama’s narrow streets, crushing an armed rebellion by an estimated 200 to 500 fighters from the Muslim Brotherhood’s military wing.

The subsequent 27-day military campaign left somewhere between 10,000 to 40,000 people killed and almost two thirds of the city destroyed, according to human rights organisations and foreign journalists who were in Syria but were not allowed to enter the city.

Almost every family in Hama, which at the time had about 250,000 inhabitants, lost a member.

“The Taleea [the Muslim Brotherhood’s military wing] had tried to resist and clashed with the government forces but was crushed in few days. The Baroudiyeh neighbourhood, where the Taleea was based, was overtaken by the army just hours after the military campaign was launched,” said Abou Tamim, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, who fled to Saudi Arabia amid the 1982 crackdown.

“But the campaign continued for days and most of the dead were civilians who had nothing to do with the Brotherhood,” he told Al Jazeera.

‘Punishing Hama’

Khani’s father was one of them. An eye doctor educated in France, he was taken by security forces to a porcelain factory where his eyes were torn out of his face. He was left to die in pain, Khani said. Tens of others in the factory-turned-detention centre were killed in various ways.

Khani says if he had publicly accused the government of killing his father in the years since his death, he could have faced the same fate. He and many other residents were forced to say that Muslim Brotherhood fighters had killed their loved ones.

“Assad wanted to punish the whole of Hama. Through us, he wanted to teach all Syrians that challenging the regime would lead to this. And it worked. It worked for 30 years.”

The fear of Hama’s residents to even mention the massacre began to falter when anti-government protests erupted across the country last March.

The first protest in Hama in 2011 came out from the Omar Bin Khattab Mosque near Hama’s castle. People chanted for freedom and the fall of the regime, the first serious challenge to the Assad dynasty in decades.

That same mosque is where, Khani recalls, he and his mother and siblings took refuge, along with other families, during the first few days of the military campaign in 1982.

The mosque turned into a detention centre. Women and children were separated from their fathers, husbands and brothers. A day and a half later, a soldier shouted from behind the mosque’s gate: “Do not expect to see your men when you are out.” He was right.

And there are those who now refer to Syria as being part of the Axis of Resistance. That would only make sense if you expand the term thusly: the Axis of Resistance to Justice, Democracy and Human Rights.

10 Comments »

  1. Thanks for this. Great article. Trouble is, Saudi Arabia can’t decide which part of the anti-imperialist camp to join. You are writing here about the Saudis immanent meeting with Iranian leaders. But about a month ago, precisely worried about US-Iranian negotiations and the further drawing of the US towards the Iran-Syria “resistance axis” to resist ISIS, the Saudis met with none other than the world head of the anti-imperialist camp, Russian FM Lavrov, and found a surprising amount of agreement on regional issues: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2014/06/22/Moscow-seeks-to-play-negotiator-Riyadh-holds-the-keys.html

    Comment by mkaradjis — August 2, 2014 @ 12:23 am

  2. Washington opposes political Islam so much that it backed the mujahedeen against the progressive Afghan government, ousted Qaddafi only to abandon the country to jihadis, ousted Saddam only to abandon that country to jihadis, and is now arming a jihadi dominated opposition to the secular dictator of Syria. Hmmm… Who should I believe? You or my lying eyes?

    Comment by Joy Takai — August 2, 2014 @ 4:18 am

  3. Don’t forget what Kissinger said. The USA does not have permanent friends or enemies, only interests. Right now it is backing General Haftar in Libya against political Islam. He is a long-time ally of the CIA.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 2, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

  4. Thanks for the factional run down.

    I wonder when the workers and peasants of the Middle East will get to hear about the fact that the fearless leaders of their nation States are only interested in maintaining and possibly extending their political control over the producers of wealth. They aren’t going to hear it from the MB, the Zionists or the many other ideologists class rule and national salvation….god willing, of course.

    Comment by Mike Ballard — August 3, 2014 @ 12:43 am

  5. “And is now arming a jihadi dominated opposition to the secular dictator of Syria.” I wonder how may times this phrase has been repeated across the length and breadth of the left, still without a single piece of evidence. Actually, despite all the evidence to the contrary. But who cares about facts when you got a good story?

    Comment by mkaradjis — August 3, 2014 @ 12:37 pm

  6. And in the 1950s, at the time US was violating the Geneva Accords in Southeast Asia, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said, “The United States does not have friends; it has interests.”

    Then there’s the ugly reality that Israel’s rapacious brand of Zionism promotes such sentiments to an extreme.

    Comment by Joe Barnwell — August 3, 2014 @ 7:30 pm

  7. The only thing more offensive than this swindling post is the fact of how typical it’s become of the salivating Western “leftist” blogosphere in general and its American commentariat in particular to peddle useless categories and disorienting optics for understanding imperialism and its consequences for regional and local politics in the so-called Middle East. Congratulations. You’ve at least perfected the art of playing dumb.

    To assume that the Arab world is a priori governed by tribal and sectarian allegiances and not local and global political-economic interests can only be described as racist. You are either intellectually dishonest or politically corrupt. In this capacity you do not differ from those who may claim, as you put it, that the “categorical imperative” is opposing “political Islam”. It is you who insists on reifying this constructed imperative by supporting its imagined opposite. You must be either stupid or supportive of war. Since I would like to think that much of your readership has decent intentions and should not be slotted into the latter camp, let me assume dishonesty and obfuscation on your part and confusion on theirs. The ahistorical fiction of “political Islam” peddled here is propped up by a bricolage of decontextualized realpolitik bleached of its origins and references and aimed at discrediting the resistance. I will first unpack and address the distortions in your analysis and then come to this “first principle” you use to bat people over the head into submission.

    With a view to the basic goal of your post — which is to chastise those of us that support the resistance axis and understand who stands to gain from its defeat — you paint a picture where the basic contradiction underpinning everything from class formation to political allegiances in the Middle East is one of “political Islam” versus “secular Arab states”. At the most basic level one might expect that you understand there to be a difference between the mediatized and exaggerated “political Islam” of Hezballah, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Hamas and its allied factions, (all three of which, by the way, represent populations across class, sect and religion, and all three of which are considered expressions of “political Islam” by no one but their enemies) on the one hand, and the self-professed albeit no less mediatized, categorically sectarian “political Islam” agenda of Al Qaeda and its more caliphate-oriented offshoots, as well as the mythology of the “Muslim Brotherhood” which is not and has not been a regional organization for decades.

    But to you, history does not matter. Thus the “Muslim Brotherhood” in Egypt – an oppositional organization that since the seventies has been bolstered largely by finance capital, currency trading and petty commodity trading, and an organization that was happy to accommodate the Egyptian military’s political and economic immunity until the former ruling class factions removed its leaders permanently in the 2013 coup – this MB, which has displayed little more than performative support for Hamas while bearing a historical record of variously betraying and capitalizing on the Palestinian cause – is to you the same as the MB in Syria, which is a constellation of middle class forces that has been dormant and largely irrelevant to the vast majority of the population for the past thirty years. This MB in turn, to you, is indistinguishable from the myriad gangs of mercenaries and lunatics that have been shuttled in, armed to the teeth, and mandated to murder Alawites, Shiites, Christians, Druze and Assyrians wherever they might find them —— never mind their material sources of support.

    In a similar vein, I imagine you do not distinguish between the MB and the Salafis in Egypt even though the latter have only ever had tactical and transient support for the former, and in the last two years have come out in forceful support of the coup regime in Egypt. You probably join the coup-supporting classes of Cairo in alleging that the “terror attacks” taking place throughout the countryside are attributable to the MB (even though the Egyptian MB — literally nothing more than a bunch of lawyers, engineers, doctors and businessmen — disavowed violence as a tactic many decades ago) rather than the gangs of extremists and arms that have been trafficked in through the Libyan border since 2011, or the sai’di peasant insurgencies that have been put down daily by the state since before 2011, etc etc etc. You read the New York Times and the BBC citing their preferred sound-bytes from politicians and diplomats and you build a narrative of the world that serves your own sectarian agenda within the chattering “left” and against the American anti-war movement on the one hand, and – crucially – serves the agenda of imperialism and the sectarian wars it produces.

    It is this basic ignorance and acceptance of colonial categories that underpins the argument that Bashar al Assad’s “regime” is founded on an opposition to “political Islam” and that the Syrian government sees itself as fighting a war against “political Islam”. You are simply retarded. And your characterization of Hamas leads me to believe you are a Mossad agent. But, again, for the benefit of your readership: the newer and longer-range rockets that the Hamas-led Palestinian resistance in Gaza have been able to use in recent months were delivered to them by Bashar al Assad despite the party’s previous decision to distance itself from the Syrian government. This might suggest to you that the government’s political agenda contains something substantially more than opposition to “political Islam”. But you are too deceitful to admit this. So you conflate a comment from Bashar al Assad about Arab identity and unity with a larger project of “fighting political Islam”.

    Bashar’s comment may well be described as opportunist and irrelevant to the reality he refers to in Egypt (with the caveat that the Muslim Brotherhood’s party in Egypt was not “freely elected” you fucking liberal, but was appointed by the ruling generals to absorb the anger on the streets and pre-empt a full scale revolution or the rise of a new party that could challenge the army’s status. It has been widely accepted by everyone on the Egyptian left that the army’s decision to announce Morsi president instead of Shafik was designed precisely to give the police forces the opportunity to regroup and end the organization’s presence in politics permanently. But you’re a fucking pundit and it’s not clear that you read Arabic in the first place, so why should we expect more from you than this opportunistic prostitution of an organization whose leadership now languishes in prison cells and whose social bases are being mass murdered).

    Bashar’s comment can also be read as a reminder of how dangerous sectarian agendas can be in times of upheaval and particularly at a time when Arabs everywhere need to remember that their primary enemy is not identitarian and faith-based difference but rather the “categorical imperatives” of settler colonialism and the imperialist designs to divide-and-conquer populations so they are incapable of sovereignty. Bashar may have meant the comment, which you irresponsibly cite third hand, as just such a reminder. He may also have meant it as a pose. It’s sort of irrelevant when your political grammar rests not so much on Bashar’s government’s “intentions” (when it is fighting to survive) as those of Saudi Arabia and the United States – intentions you discern wholesale from their public theatre and not from a historical never mind material analysis of the American political establishment and its “relationship” to the pentagon on the one hand, and to oil corporations on the other.

    Your remarkably childish points-based form of reasoning goes something like this: “the Saudi state has historically had a tense relationship to Al Qaeda; ergo, the Saudi state does not want to impose political Islam on the region. The Saudi and American states are threatened by ISIS and performing appeals for Iranian “cooperation” in order to defeat it; ergo, ISIS cannot possibly be backed by the Saudis and nor do the Americans particularly care if Bashar goes. Since there is no coherent project called “political Islam”, then the armed rebels in Syria are revolutionaries at best and harmless at worst, and leftists everywhere should oppose Assad’s regime or at least admit camaraderie with Saudi Arabia.” Your assumption, as usual, and cited from The National Interest no less, is that USG “interests” are what Obama says they are, and not what the bank accounts and charters of oil and weapons companies say they are. If you accept the theatrical statements about ISIS and “state failure” then you’ve accepted the narrative that post-invasion (or pre-invasion) Iraq was ever a state of its people, when in fact Iraq was invented first by the British and then re-invented by the Americans always as a sect-based political sham to distract from the drilling and pumping going on in the background. But because you’ve accepted American narratives about ISIS, why wouldn’t you accept Saudi narratives about the same.

    Never mind the fact that Al Qaeda was invented and empowered by both Saudi and the CIA in the eighties and that the Saudi ruling class is itself rooted in an extremist class of thinkers empowered by the British in the thirties to discipline oil workers and now directs its energies toward disciplining local dissent more generally and perpetuates sectarianism largely with a view to that. Saudi capitalists are not too different from European and American capitalists: just as the American establishment likes to blame AIPAC for its problems, so does the Saudi corporation that is the monarchy like to blame Shi’ites for its domestic inequalities.

    Some of ISIS’s actions may well be an unintended effect of their bolstering and arming by Saudi billionaires (who are they, by the way? Can you name one? How did they make their billions and how do they recycle them?) but your argument that this effect does not serve imperial interests in the region is built on two assumptions: first, that “American” and “Saudi” interests are in “stability” and not oil and arms’ manufacturers’ profits (which depend on instability and war) and second, that ISIS butchering its way throughout the Levant does anything but secure the Zionist entity’s expansionist and genocidal “categorical imperative”. If you understood the world as it is and not as you wish it would be, you would understand that there is no such thing as “national interests”; there are competing “interest groups” — classes, if you will! —and within these some interests dominate others. The Saudis’ official policy of opposing the “MB” is not a false flag operation at all; it is deliberately designed to consolidate its posture with that of the Egyptian army by declaring the region under permanent emergency rule in al-Sisi’s “war on terror”. It has nothing to do with “political Islam”; it has to do with securing the same arms flow from the US to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan that Israel continues to model. That arms flow is designed to protect the Saudi regime (and its allies) from its population at a time when the country is sitting on a potential earthquake of oil and water shortages and rising food prices.

    You lament Greaves’s correct description of ISIS as effective proxies executing imperialist objectives and in the same breath you lament al-Maliki’s filthy sectarianism as though it were hatched overnight and not deliberately put in power and armed – however ineptly – by American colonialism. So you are ignoring both recent and older history as well as present realities as advertised by ISIS itself, which views non-takfiris of any variety as more pressing enemies than the Zionists. Meanwhile, you make the most appallingly disingenuous, ahistorical and deceitful comparison between Hamas, which sees itself and is seen by Palestinians everywhere (not just is electorate) as a resistance movement, and the Syrian and Egyptian “MB” which you again conflate under the same umbrella. Hamas has little to no meaningful connection to any other “MB” even if the opportunist scum of Turkey and Qatar pretend to support it owing to the rivalry of the latter against KSA in the GCC, and the need of the former to save face in front of its people in the wake of the Mavi Marmara shadow that was cast upon its famed historical military alliance with Israel.

    The Palestinian resistance will prevail because Palestinians have dignity. They will not be “driven into the sea” or expelled. The resistance axis which you ridicule does not care about Hamas leaders’ comments about Syrian politics. The resistance axis cares about Palestinian liberation and an end to the constitutionally genocidal racist Zionist project which finds its mirror image and justification in nothing less than precisely the re-drawing of regional borders along sectarian lines. The resistance axis is under attack not just in Syria but in Lebanon where Hezballah is being daily attacked by the lunatics of ISIS and al Nusra. The resistance cares about ending the settler colony’s cancerous violence in the Middle East. It is not clear what you care about besides the mythology of Syrian “revolution” and its weaponization to distract your American readers from demanding that their government get the hell out of the Middle East and start feeding and educating them instead. It is not clear what you care about, but it is crystal clear whose “categorical imperatives” you support by discrediting the resistance. You may well be an electronic bot if not in fact a psyops agent —— but your readership should pay attention to your lies and resist them, too.

    Comment by openrafah — August 3, 2014 @ 9:58 pm

  8. I really don’t see much point in answering this rant but will say only one thing. The IP address indicates that the person is on the Columbia University network. If it is a student, their parents are clearly wasting their money. If it is a professor, I can understand why he or she is using a fake name and email address to avoid embarrassing themselves.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 3, 2014 @ 10:45 pm

  9. Two phrases caught my attention: The first is that Hamas statement about Jews being driven into the sea is a “shibboleth” and the real existential threat is to Hamas and “the population they represent.” The second is that Hamas’ existential threat is real because they have little support from regional Arab governments because they, Hamas, have been insufficiently subservient to Israel/Zionist demands.

    Isn’t this a bit casual? Merely a shibboleth? This really seems like sweeping away a lot of complexity in service to an assumption that capital/imperialism vs Hamas’ worker/street cred is a key not only to the current crisis but the shifting alliances and conflicts since Henry Kissinger spread the U.S. poison half a century ago. It comes across as something that might work for a 10 page school assignment but maybe a bit utopian for helping someone who is looking to get a clearer understanding of what is actually going on in the full range of the 23 Arab countries.

    It seemed to me unnecessarily callous toward both parties — it creates real fear in Israel and it creates real passion in Gaza. Neither side treats nearly as casually as Western essayists pushing for worker utopias.

    Comment by Carson — August 4, 2014 @ 11:20 pm

  10. While I agree that “openrafah”‘s reactionary rant is best ignored, one point I’ll make: the claim that “the newer and longer-range rockets that the Hamas-led Palestinian resistance in Gaza have been able to use in recent months were delivered to them by Bashar al Assad” has been one of the talking points of the Assadista left through this Gaza war. Every time, of course, without offering a shred of evidence for this entirely false assertion. Judge the rest of the rubbish on that basis.

    Comment by mkaradjis — August 6, 2014 @ 2:52 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: