On the slaughter in the Middle East

by José Antonio Gutiérrez Sat Aug 19, 2006 14:24

Dear comrades, I think there is a fundamentally wrong point in your line of argument. This conflict is not at all about religion: in the complex middle-eastern labyrinth it is quite frequent that positions can be veiled under religious facades, but certaily, this is only the superficial "appearance" of deeper conflicts, of deeper structures that mould the region.

The main forces acting in the current conflict are the will of the US to keep the region "clean" of potential enemies, keeping the long tradition of docile and domesticated regimes willing to serve fully the interests of the Oil barons, that already lead to the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan; the other force, is the will of Israel to expand its northern border up to the Litani river. This is all well known and the preparations for the war, as it has been revealed to the press, has been in place since a year ago.

Those are the main forces of this particular conflict, and to those interested in hiding the real nature of the current Middle East myriad of conflicts, it is very handy that the "religious" facade of it conceals the true economic and imperialistic nature of them. That is why it is so important for us anarchists to stand up clearly against that sort of arguments.

The second biggest problem in having a really revolutionary approach to the current crisis, are the "principled" positions we, as leftist, are so inclined to take:

a. saying "Hizbollah are my friends for they are the enemies of the fascists in Israel". Like most of the left.

b. saying "we are not fundamentalists, therefore Hizbollah is AS bad as the other side" (usually, by the way, this "neutrality" tends to be inclined to the side of the most powerful block -Israel, in this case).

This, again, are nothing but further means to conceal the true nature of the struggle. Taking "equal distance" can conceal the fact that one of the sides is doing an imperialist aggression and the other side is resisting. Does this mean to support "politically" Hizbollah? Obviously not. While taking distance from the political project of Hizbollah, their right to resistance is just and cannot be denied, in the face of the expanding urges of Israel.

I insist, Middle East is a very complex labyrinth, and one cannot take absolutely "principled" positions all the time. Especially in the face that we lack an alternative there, and it will grow, if it is to grow, in the resistance to imperialism -this resistance asumes numerous faces, and not only fundamentalist ones. But the fact that anti-imperialism and revolution don't necessarily go hand in hand, don't undermine the morality of the right to resist.

by javier Mon Aug 21, 2006 03:28

I agree with you but I beleive that the war in Lebanon has more to do with Israel's opposition to any surrounding military force and the (possible or factual) relationship it may have with the palestinean resistance. that is, I do not expect israeli settlements in this security zone (there were none during the 1982 invasion, it was very similar in the sense it was meant to supress the olp or at least push it further away). Even more, they are (again, as in 1982) aiming for other countries (including Lebanon) paying the toll in deaths of defending the israeli state's victory (before, the south lebanbon army, now the lebanese state army with US military support and multinational forces) while they take the offensive as they see fit.

by javier Mon Aug 21, 2006 03:31

Another evidence that seems to support your position about the motive of calling the resistance a fundamentalist movement (wethere the religious are a majority or no) is that it enables them to talk about a clash of civilizations, or a clash between civilization (judeocristian and western) and barbarism. It is a trick that they do not tire of using because it works.

by Dmitri (OAE) Mon Aug 21, 2006 07:43 outetheos at yahoo dot com dot au

Dear Jose. Thanks for your comment. Indeed, I have (personally) to admit that this statement was a quick one. Of course OAE knows and agrees with almost everything you say in your comment. We know that we anarchists must not follow the simplistic analysis of the various left groups or organisation which all of them (and I really hardly can see someone different) saying that “Hezbollah is my friend because is the enemy of my enemy”. We know very well and understand that the whole situation in the Middle East is really a big labyrinth, as you say, a messy and a complicated situation. I know also that we anarchists have a very small (even non) presence in some countries of this area etc etc.
In fact, this must be awake us!
Because we think we have got two problems:. The one is that we have a difficulty in the languge problem to know what happens every time in Middele East. Maybe some of these comrades or militants who are living and are active (or they wish to be active but they can’t because of various social and other reasons) in these countries have difficulties to communicate in Eenglish or other European languages. This is a problem that we think always characterised the anarchist movement, that we had not and still we have not today enough comrades in our organisations, in our countries knowing languages, so of course our knowledge for many countries are limited. And we don’t know how to solve a little bit the problem of the language frontiers.
The second is a result of the previous one and of course of other reasons, that to understand these societies, their problems, the social conflicts happen there etc we have to have a really deep look at them in order to do an analysis of these societies and with co-operation (meaning our support to them by any way) with our comrades there (including of course those who are not anarchists but whose actions and ideas are closer to us) to try establish something more solid etc.
So, we see that the one depends on the other.
We hope that in the near future OAE, after consideration and reasearch will be in the position to develop a more advanced analysis of the Middle East situation in a class struggle and anarchocommunist perspective.
Dimitri – OAE International secretary

by mc fisto - autonomists' union 360 Mon Aug 21, 2006 08:56 bdsm at luckydevilgirlyshow dot com

why advocate class war?...do you want what THEY have?...do you just want to take away what THEY have so that noone will have IT ,whatever IT is??...how about a reduction in the need for resources instead of fighting under the table for scraps like a bunch of mongrel dogs....the only power you can possibly have in your life is to not need ..the only equalizer is to refuse to be led...by anyone any ideaology...this system feeds as easily off of dissent as easily as it does affirmation

by José Antonio Gutiérrez Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:45

Javier, you are dead right when it comes to the efforts of the Israel military to try to undrrmine the military capacity of potential enemies -there's just when it comes the struggle against Hizbollah. Still, I think the main feature of this will to keep an absolute military hegemony, are both its expansionst tendencies -now expressed briefly in the expansion towards the Litani; then, the imperialist role it plays as a regional "stabiliser" (though the direct result is unstableness).

Though I agree Dmitri with you on the need to have first hand information of what is going on there, this is just not enough. As well, there is needed a sharp view on events, and that can be obtained even through reading the mainstream media carefully, and reading behind lines... in the absence of a movement, reading carefully to the western media, knowing before hand the biases and interpreting the ideological view they offer, could prove as useful.

"why advocate class war?...do you want what THEY have?...do you just want to take away what THEY have so that no one will have IT ,whatever IT is??" Dear Mc Fisto, in fairness class war is not just about taking what THEY have (I assume by they you mean the dominant class). Class struggle and revoloution it is actually to deny the current order of things and bring about something completely new. It is not about a quantitative change, but a qualitative one. It is not just to have "capitalism" run by workers -or everyone- but it is to create a new society -anarchism- in which the happiness and welfare of all human beings should be the main reason to wake up in the morning and make the world keep spinning around.

by Donato Romito - FdCA Mon Aug 21, 2006 14:25 donatoromito at tiscalinet dot it

All of us know that Hezbollah, the Party of God, is not a mass resistance movement against imperialism and for freedom of proletariat in Lebanon. It's another State, built stone by stone, after 1982 with Syria 's and Iran's dollars, inside the "no-state" Lebanon, in the shade of sub-imperialism in that strategic area from Middle East to Caspian Sea. They will re-build the south of Lebanon as they have more money than SIniora can spend, they have institutions for global welfare (education, care, wealth, building, war victims' funds,...). What about their dollars? (the money of the evil, sic). One million of dollars comes from Iran (apart from military aids); dollars from religious tax on 1/5 of the sceethian workers' wages; dollars from investments in economy (as islam forbids bank's interests); dollars from financial triangulation with international financial banks and agencies. Not forgetting a TV broadcasting all over the country.
The true political victim in Lebanon, as AL BADIL comrades tried to explain in their first statement from Beiruth, is the "14 of march people movement", a tiny hope of freedom and laicity, quickly adversed by coloniser Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and State of Israel.
State of Israel strategy is perfect: a persisting war situation has more chances till Hamas and Hezbollah rule in Palestyne and Lebanon. Their god only knows how they have been working because Hamas could win the elections and Hezbollah could grow.
Yes, it's a labyrint, but we have no Ariadne's thread but our anarchist communist point of view to try to understand.
sorry for my english
ciao
Donato

by José Antonio Gutierrez Mon Aug 21, 2006 18:53

Yes comrades, we all know that Hizbollah gets money from Iran and Syria. There's nothing new in acknowledging that. But is naive to believe that their base of support is a mechanic result of that: the US, in contrast, has been spending far more money with a number of so-called "pro-democracy" movements all over the world, and they do not have the popular strenght of Hizbollah. Actually, the US sponsored allies in Venezuela or Haiti are nothing but the laughing stocks of the people. Their base of support comes from those opposing the neverending Israel aggressive imperialist politics. I'm not making no moral judgement here, just acknowledging the fact that Hizbollah strenght derives from Israel's imperialism and that they are not simply an "evil" product of the "sick-minds-of-iran-and-syria" (as Bush would like us to believe.)

Yes comrades, we all know that they are to build a new State and that they are, de facto, in South Lebanon THE State. That's why I mentioned that if would be very strange for us to support the project of this organisation.

Yes, we all know that they are not an anti-imperialist force born from the working class, or even having the working class as the main target of their policies. They are, indeed, the Party of God, plain and simple. But that's why I mentioned that anti-imperialism and revolution not necessarily go hand in hand. This is the perfect example of that.

Should I, again, insist in keeping the proportions of the nature of the fighters involved? Should I remember again that on the one hand there is an imperialist power and that on the other hand there is a legitimate resistance to imperialism? (no matter I disagree strongly in the political project of this group, their resistance is indeed legitimate. We can't be "Fundamentalists" ourselves on this issue)

The insistence in the evils of the weaker force, usually is useful to bias public opinion, to increase tolerance to the blatant imperialist aggression of the Zionist-fascists and thus justify, somehow, this military offenssive. Too much blame over Hizbolah (and too little on Israel) is useful to conceal the true nature of what is going on. All I said is to keep the right balance and proportions. That is all.

There's still another point left on the agenda. We have all agreed that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend. Right? And there is exactly the point where I want to strongly disagree with comrade Romito. He says:

"The true political victim in Lebanon, as AL BADIL comrades tried to explain in their first statement from Beiruth, is the "14 of march people movement", a tiny hope of freedom and laicity, quickly adversed by coloniser Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and State of Israel."

Sorry, but the 14th of march people are mainly from the north and have no presence among the Shi'ite population of Lebanon. The
real victims have been the Lebanese people at large, but particularly the Shi'ite community, in Beirut and in the South of the country.

Sorry, but I see no hope of "freedom" in that movement, as it is strongly pro-US, pro-capitalist, basically a bourgeois movement. It is a right wing movement, that promotes laicity, yes, but this does not make them "radical" in any significant way. Secularist, does not mean leftist.

It is dangerous to make my enemy's enemy my friend -so, as it is not an issue of turning into cheerleaders of Hizbollah, is it an issue of turning into cheerleaders of their political adversaries, the capitalist "14th of march movement"? Hizbollah aren't great, so anyone against them is our friend? those who massacred palestinians in shatilla, for instance? the US? We could go a long way down into cheerleading the enemies of Hizbollah... no, comrades, don't lose sight of what is on stake today in the Middle East. Hizbolah aren't great, we know that -but that does not turn the 14th of March movement in the saviours of Lebanon. Let's keep an anarcho-communist perspective, as you say, on this issue.

by Manuel Baptista - AC-Interpro (Portugal) Tue Aug 22, 2006 00:24

What does it mean...an anarchist-communist perspective on this issue?
I've read with attention the contribution of all of you, comrades, and this is the product of my thought at this point:
- If it is allways true that we want no war but class war, why is it so?
I think that war has been the mean to defeat all the possibilities for the workers class to organize for itself, to be able to fight the class war.
The wars, mainly from the 19th century on, were (also) instruments to submit the workers class.
And today even more so.

If the Middle East is in constant war, the workers there will not be able to fight their own wars (againsts the local bourgeoisies) because they must fight for keeping their country from invaders, or to get the country rid of invaders.

So, we as anarchist-communists, must help our comrades the way they ask us to.
It doesn't help anything if I want to «help» someone in my way: that is the way I think is the best for that person, but isn't her who knows the best how she want to be helped?

It is clear to me that Lebanon neads peace, but not at any cost, not a peace that means only a truce until the next criminal invasion by this powerful militarist power of Israel.
I think that in the long run, neither Sionists nor Islam Fundamentalists want any peace. They only want endless fight to submit their own people, apart from the others.

So, this class war too. The need to destroy both SIONISM and ISLAM FUNDAMENTALISM.
Even if you don't have necessarily a friend in the enemy of your enemy, you may be happy that two enemies of your are fighting each other, so that it may give you one opportunity to become stronger.
So, let's suport the Lebanese anti-authoritarian left, the same way we support the Israelii anarchists, and those they find they can fight along in their countries.

If Al Badil is conscious to make alliance with some secularist pro-capitalists at some point, let's understand they have made a class analysis and they view this as the best way to move forward.
If the Israelii anarchists decide to make joint demos with some authoritarians, including some of the left wing Sionists, they know -for sure- that this involves risks: they found it worth taking those risks.

But the essential thing is to give full support to them all.

It is also our duty to fight for a true peace in the Middle East, against all the forces that push to war.
I think that -sometimes- it is not only the USA and Israel that take the initiative, let's not be simplistic.

by José Antonio Gutiérrez Tue Aug 22, 2006 19:16

"If it is allways true that we want no war but class war, why is it so?"

We would all wish it was that simple; unfortunately, in dependent countries, subdued to imperialist powers (that's it, like most of the world except for the US, Europe and Australia), the class war if often crossed by other conflicts, many times anti-imperialist ones, nationalist conflicts, etc... where we need to have a clear voice, beyond simplistic class struggle rethoric as this is, quite obviously, not enough in practice.

Class struggle should be a weapon to desgin our politics, but we cannot exchange our political analysis by a couple of slogans and a two-terms reductionist view, that in fact, makes it sometimes more difficult to understand the nature of the conflict, and henceforth, it would alienate you from real struggles.

Take for example Ireland: the class struggle in the north it is crossed by the national conflict and there's no way around it. You have to take a stand on the national question: that doesn't mean in anyway to avoid a class struggle analysis, but instead, bring it back to earth, and that means to make concrete class politics for real life. If you avoid mentioning the national conflict and advocate only the "pure class struggle"... you will find quite soon that it does not exist anywhere and that you are exchanging reality for your own capricious wishes!

The best example of that are the brilliant analysis on the national question that the WSM has produced over the years: without being uncritical of the IRA, they've clearly kept the proportions in the right balance between the main forces on stake (British imperialism and the nationalists). This original approach allows the possibility of becoming an alternative force, and not only spectators from the sidelines. That approach has the chance of making anarchist politics relevant to real people.


"I think that war has been the mean to defeat all the possibilities for the workers class to organize for itself, to be able to fight the class war."

In this case in particular, I can't see why you say that the war has been a "mechanism" to keep workers under control. It is true that many times war has been used as a means of keepin the "riff raff" on line, but definitely, there is no significant autonomous workers' movement at either side of the border to keep under control in this particular case. Then, that's an abstract formula, not necessarily meaning anything to the conflict going on in the Middle East today.

The current inability of the workers to organise autonomously moght be a side effect of the ongoing crisis, but it is definitely not the machiavelic intention of it. There are other forces operating that comes to a crisis and I've already mentioned some of them. The conflict is expressing that tension, between the need to redesign (once again) post-colonial Middle East, imperialist intrerests there and the nationalist forces that oppose this (from various angles).

"If the Middle East is in constant war, the workers there will not be able to fight their own wars (againsts the local bourgeoisies) because they must fight for keeping their country from invaders, or to get the country rid of invaders"

Well comrade, if your own country was invaded, then you would know how important it is the struggle against imperialism in all its forms and against invaders in all their shapes. That's a struggle of the workers too!!!!! The thing is that we should make sure that that struggle goes hand in hand with class struggle. again, in third world context, class struggle is far more complicated than in central economies.

"So, we as anarchist-communists, must help our comrades the way they ask us to.
It doesn't help anything if I want to «help» someone in my way: that is the way I think is the best for that person, but isn't her who knows the best how she want to be helped?"

I beg to differ on that point comrade. Though we should give our comrades the support they are asking for in the best way we can (absolute agreement at that point) my own intelligence says that if I'm in disagreement I have a right to express my opinions. That's the basics of anarchist solidarity, isn't it? To put a historical example: the comrades of "Spain and the World" (Vernon Richards and Marie Louise Berneri among them), from England, were serious supporters of the Spanish Anarcho-syndicalists' struggle against fascism... while at the same time, they were one of the most crticial voices to their politics (particularly after accepting to enter the bourgeois government) and they sharply criticised what they saw as a dangerous turn to compromise at the expense of the revolution. History showed that their opinion was more than justified.

I'm not willing to become anyone's cheerleader, as I don't expect anyone to become my cheerleader neither; solidarity, yes. But a thoughtful solidarity comrade. To discuss things you don't agree with, is part of that solidarity too, because through constructive criticism you expect the comrades (all of us) to grow political and have a more articulate view of the whole situation. A movement afraid of criticism, is a movement condemned to remain stagnant and impotent.

"It is clear to me that Lebanon neads peace, but not at any cost, not a peace that means only a truce until the next criminal invasion by this powerful militarist power of Israel."

We definitely agree on that. And this is exactly the ponit we have to put forward as loud and as clear as possible.

"So, this class war too. The need to destroy both SIONISM and ISLAM FUNDAMENTALISM."

but in order to achieve that, you have, as a political alternative, to develop the politics that allow you to address the deeper conflict underlying behind Sectarian lines: imperialism, expansionism, and so on, while addressing a clear class struggle agenda. As long as we are not able to do that, fundamentalism will keep channeling the popular anger we should be channeling. This is true not onyl for the Middle East, but for Latin america when it comes to progressive nationalism. So what we are talking about now is not only about Lebanon, but how we build an anarcho-communist alternative anywhere we are. We are discussing basic politics.

"Even if you don't have necessarily a friend in the enemy of your enemy, you may be happy that two enemies of your are fighting each other, so that it may give you one opportunity to become stronger."

The thing is: if the social cost of that fight is that high as the one the working class in Lebanon is paying... can you really be happy? Seriously? and moreover, as long as you don't address the problem of imperialism and the "deeper conflict" I'm talknig about, the chances aren't for you to grow stronger, but those who are addressing those problems, even if they are doing it through sectarian lines. After this conflict partial ending, I don't see anarco-communism an inch stronger, but I see Hizbollah much stronger than before.

"So, let's suport the Lebanese anti-authoritarian left, the same way we support the Israelii anarchists"

They do have our full support, though I keep my right to dissent with the first ones on a number of issues.

"If Al Badil is conscious to make alliance with some secularist pro-capitalists at some point, let's understand they have made a class analysis and they view this as the best way to move forward."

Maybe. But still you can think that this is a wrong choice, and if so, you have the DUTY to let know your opinions if you think they can be useful. Constructive criticism should be a permanent companion in our road to revolution.

by Manuel Baptista Tue Aug 22, 2006 21:33

Let's see... I agree with most of your statements, but I still have something that I would like to stress: for me, the class war continues under a war context, but in very bad conditions for our class.

I don't need to be in a citizen of any invaded and occupied nation to know what it is. And I just wanted to stress that these conditions are not -for sure- the best ones either for workers in Lebanon or in Israel, or any other country enduring war.

Yes, I do think our Lebanese comrades deserve support : and it is not to support them to say they don't know who are their best allies, to fight the class war in their own conditions.

I think it is worth understanding this, cause it's also a communist anarchist principle: we are really for autonomous decision-making at any level.
So, the most we can do is asking our Al Badil comrades the reasons why they have chosen a certain alliances schema.

In general, it seems to me quite clear that the road to an oppening of the situation (and it doesn't mean that I'm happy because of the war!) may come, when the sionist and the fundamentalist enemies are not able to find any solution, but just the brute force, which is no solution at all ...

by Ilan S. - Anarchists Against The Wall Tue Aug 22, 2006 22:16 Tel Aviv

The present round of Israely initiated Lebanese war is in the same context as the one before.
The weak Lebalese state is taken advantege by forces engaging in attrition war with Israel settler colonialism.

The first round was to stop the Palestinians from using Lebanon.
Israel brutal onslout destroyed Lebanon to achieve its aim... but only partially succeeded so it kept occupying south lebanon - enabling Iran and Syria to promote the Hisballah - each for its own reasons. The Iranians wanted a stronghold in Lebanon, lately to deter Israel from involving in the harasment of Iran nuclear ambition. The Syrian wanted the Hizballah to replace the defunct Palestinian guerila in presuring Israel so it will retreat from occupied South west Syria (Golan).

The Hizballa succeeded to overcome the Amal shiah leadership by both Iranian donation for social expances and by struggle agains Israel occupation. Thus. 6 years ago when Israel retreated from Lebanon, the sporadic attacs of Hizballah were more simbolic than serious.

The last war was mainly in order to neutralize Hizballah ability to punish Israel by rockets - as it did during the few weeks war, so Israel will be able to take part in US attak on Iran, and effectively presure Syria.

As Israel failed in the aim of the war, it may need to retreat from occupied Syria lands so it will stop the most needed support to Hizballa and thus Israel will be able to neutralize it and play its part to presure Iran.

So, the war in Lebanon is mainly on the level of big power relations when the people of Lebanon (mainly) and the Israeli residents of the North - Jews and Arabs, pay dearly.

The Hamas is not a really national liberation fighters as some "leftists" want us to believe.

Being the first Arab force Israel failed to defeat in war, got for it wide spread sympathy from most Arabs and other sympathisers of the Palestinians.

by mc fisto Wed Aug 23, 2006 09:37

i guess you miss my point , jose, ...my questions were rhetorical and i was merely trying to point out that the discussion of the overthrow of the "powers- that-be "only adds to their power...when we cease to feed them by taking them on they will vanish...if self rule is the road to happiness let us take the first step by changing the subject...if we get up from the table and walk away instead of arguing about the rules then the game is over

by Donato Romito Wed Aug 23, 2006 14:07

Of course, Hezbollah doesn't need our legitimation about its right to resistance. They didn't resist to Syrian invasion in Lebanon in 1987...but anyway, my question is: in a "deeper conflict", in a labirinth, once recognised Hezbollah's objective and subjective right to resistance, is this resistance anti-imperialistic just because Israel is imperialistic?
Has Hezbollah inside itself anything we can define not-imperialistic?
None of us would support Hezbollah's political project. True? And why? Maybe because it's made by the same seeds on which exploitment and oppression grow? The same seeds spread by imperialism all over the world as system of dependences among nations/States? (and after URSS death under USA war attemptments to control it.)
Israel is a war state and it needs enemies around its borders; Hezbollah needs Israel militarism to justify its militarism and its being a state inside the state.
When and where the guns rule, when and where the endemic war kills thousands of proletarians and destroys the "civil society" and feeds militarism, nationalism, fanatism, authoritarianism and the evergreen exploiters, I think we all anarchist communist should support those voices, even if little voices inside the "civil society", that "desert" and offer an alternative and peaceful perspective in all the Middle East today as yesterday in the ex-Yugoslavia.
Once we feed militarism, it will eat us as soon as possible.
We need peace to build our "naive" politics: unity, solidarity, base-democracy aganist all ruling élites.
ciao
Donato
PS-Italian paradox: on italian towns walls you can read "Honor to Hezbollah resistance" signed by an m-l red star and "Honor to Hezbollah resistance" signed by the fascist celtic cross. Friends? Enemies? simple acquaintances?

by José Antonio Gutiérrez Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:54

1. Manuel, you say "it's a communist anarchist principle: we are really for autonomous decision-making at any level. So, the most we can do is asking our Al Badil comrades the reasons why they have chosen a certain alliances schema."

We can ask alright why did they chose a certain alliance scheme, but at the same time, we can give our own reasons to disagree with that. And when it comes to the autonomous decision-making, we are not discussing to impose restrictions on support "if our conditions" are not met -or any other source of illegitimate pressure on them. We are not talking of imposing our own view on them. We are just using our very same "autonomy" to express a dissident point of view. That's all. So I really don't see how their autonomy might ne "threatened" by some ideas discussed on the internet. apart from that, we seem to have a fair deal of agreement

2. The same is true with Ilan, who gives a quite good contribution to the debate on the "deeper conflict". Still, I think that beyond the mere intention of reducing Hizbullah ability to punish Israel with rockets, in the Israel's offensive lies as well the expansionist will to make it finally to the Litani river -something that Tanya Reinhart points out quit rightly.

3. When it comes to the point if Hizbullah is a national liberation movement or not, they are indeed playing that role in the face of the Israeli aggression -still, let's not forget that in most post-colonial countries the equation State=Nation, is quite a weak one. Lebanon is composed by several nationalities and religious communities. In the case of Hizbollah, it remains quite clear what nation they are representing: the Arab nation, especifically, the Shi'ite community (therefore, it is quite obvious why they didn't complain about the '87 intervention of Syria, and why this does not question their "national liberation" nature). They were born back in '82 as a reaction to the Israeli invasion and they remain to play the same role. The fact that they can be considered a National Liberation movement, does not necessarily means that they can be considered as well "Leftists", and this is the point where we have to make clear when it comes to them...

4. Donato poses to this discussion a highly subjective statement, that in my opinion, is not that politically useful: "Israel is a war state and it needs enemies around its borders; Hezbollah needs Israel militarism to justify its militarism and its being a state inside the state". I want to disagree with that too. Maybe both sides would rather not have the enemies around them. Israel would rather see its hegemony (and that of the US) imposed with no resistance: its militarism grows due to the inability of this to happen. The point is that militarism is not an end on its own but it serves concrete interest. Those interests are the ones that need to be addressed. Militarism and permanent war is the unavoidable effect of the situation generated in post-colonial Middel East, where local interests and interests from all over the world clash.

5. Though I agree with Donato's criticism to militarism I disagree with his conclusion. "We need peace to build our "naive" politics: unity, solidarity, base-democracy aganist all ruling élites". In fairness, these are naive politics, as naive as when Allende said that there was a "pacific road to socialism" that only lead to... Pinochet. It is true that anarchism will only flourish when there is peace, but we have to be prepared for both bourgeois and imperialist armed resistance. That is shown by the experience of every revolution and by the experience of every single attempt at reform in weak and dependent countries. The Spanish comrades, the Ukranian comrades had peace in mind, but they did not hesitated to defend their right to freedom through all possible means. And I fully support that position, instead of a principled pacifism. Manuel rightly said that we want peace but not at any cost... absolutely right! Flores Magón, in times of the Mexican Revolution, taught us that to preach the peace those days was an abolute crime, when the important thing was to get rid of the oppressors. then, peace might come. We love peace, but we are realistic and we are ready to resist and know that the violence of a revolution depends solely on the force of the reaction to resist it -as I do not preach principled pacifism, we have to worry about the dangers of principled violentism as well.

6. I don't want to insist again, Donato, on the fact that this is no defense of Hizbollah (so please, no cheeky comments about who supports or don't support Hizbullah -I really don't give a toss, and this only takes us away from the point of discussion): it is only a call to sanity when it comes to denounce the brutality of the conflict, when it comes to balance the specific weight of each of the actors in the struggle. While we strongly disagree on Hizbullah's political project (should I keep insisting on these in each post or we can move forward with the discussion?), they are reacting to an illegetimate imperialist aggression, so we cannot say that the violence of one or the other are of the same "nature". While Israel is bombing a whole country down to rubble, Hizbullah is legitimately resisting.

For that sole reason I do not think we should criticise more, on this particular issue, those who rightly resist Imperialism (no matter their agenda on other issues) than those who have displayed the crudest racism and contempt for life in an imperialist offensive as the Zionist-fascists have done. The biggest bulk of the criticism should be reserved for Olmert's gang of thugs. That's what I mean by keeping the proportions on this issue. Otherwise, we are unconsciously acting just like the Western media, that needs to point out at all times how bad Hizbollah are, to conceal the really evil deeds of the Israeli attack, and somehow justifiy them.

7. Linked to the above mentioned, a statement that criticises "fundamentalism" without a single mention (not one) of "Zionism" is simply not acceptable.

8. What is sorley needed is the birth of a real leftist alternative to imperialism in the region. By ignoring imperialism, its importance and weight in the region, we are not helping this to happen. If we do not understand why fundamentalism is growing, then that is not likely to happen. Though, seeds of such a movement seem to be emerging and I really think that the Israeli anti-war movement, anarchists against the wall, and so on, really deserve our full support and even admiration, in the face of the difficulties of taking direct action in Air Force stations in such a climate of hysteria as it is created by any conflict or war-like situation.

9. A point I just want to bring at the end, for I do not think it is necessarily politically relevant to this discussion. Ilan said that "the Israeli residents of the North - Jews and Arabs, pay dearly". We know and regret that. But we cannot forget that the ones that paid the dearest of it all, has been the population in the south of Lebanon, and that their pain, for most of the Western Media (apart from the Qana outrage) has been seen as normal in their schematic division of the world into those who's suffering is "normal" (Palestinians, Lebanese, Haitians, Congolese, etc..) and those whose suffering is outrageous (the US for the 9/11, Israel and the suicide bombers, and so on). So we have a pain that is acceptable and other that is just not. As anarchists, we should be more careful of the impact of our words on this issue. I'm sure that Ilan doesn't make this distinction being a comrade, but that's why I'm pointing it out about the way we might be misunderstood at times for the way we say things.

by José Antonio Gutiérrez Wed Aug 23, 2006 17:03

Mc Fisto, I'm not that much into Situationist stuff (probably that's where you are coming from) and probably missed your point. I might be a bit thick, I don't know. If you spoke a bit clearer, without so many poetic licenses, it would be much clearer and we could enter into a proper debate for both of us to learn.

Still, I wished we could stand up from the game table and walk away... but it is just not possible!!!. Capitalism is everywhere wether you like it or not, and as long as you don't change this in material terms (not only in rethoric), lifestylism is nothing but the privilege of a minority few. If I could just walk away from Capitalism, State, and so on... I would just not bother about the revolution!!!

Still, this is a part of a quite different debate, and I'm not sure if it is really relevant to understand what's going on in the Middle East right now...

by Ilan Shalif Wed Aug 23, 2006 18:47 Tel Aviv

Donato said: "Israel is a war state", but it is a wrong diagnozis. Israel is still dominated by a ruling elite in which the settler colonialists have significant power.

The services given to US imperialism are not the dominant nature of it. The interests of the capitalist part of the ruling elite are gradually increasing but they still need to compromise with the older settler colonialist elite.

The expansion and occupaying of most of the 67 gains are not any more in a dominant position. May be the last war will add the south of Syria to the evacuated list.

In a way, the present war between the Israely forces and the Hizballa was fought on the Lebaneze ground but it was really about the south of Syria.... Thus, the Hizballah are more merchanaries than fighters of national liberation.

For sure the settler colonialist wanted to expand to the Litany in south Lebanon, but no one in Israel regard this urge serious any more.

The content of conspiratorial story may be that the present impossible effort to destroy the Hizballah was to convince the Isralis that the evacuation of the 67 occupation of south Syria is a must in order to neutralize Hizballah.

May be when the US fail to prevent the Iranean nuclear bomb will be used by the capitalist elite that is for peacefull globalization as an excuse to retreat from the rest of 67 occupation to neutralize Iran.....

by mc fisto Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:10

life style autonomy is not privilege but my right ...the only situation i have created and am continuing to actualize more fully in my life is one where i can practice what others only preach..isn't this "lifestylism " the end result of the revolution that you are advocating?..

thanks for your time

by José Antonio Gutiérrez Sat Aug 26, 2006 18:19

"For sure the settler colonialist wanted to expand to the Litany in south Lebanon, but no one in Israel regard this urge serious any more"

Surely, in the face of the current conflict, the Lebanese at least have well founded reasons to start taking that urge seriously enough...