The Doha Conference:
'They come in fancy planes while the people are dying...'
As the number of Palestinian casualties jumps to 1133, those rotten Arab countries so far offered nothing to Palestine. Just as Israel got away in dissecting the West Bank, the massacres of Gaza are exceeding all forms of butcheries. More than 20 Palestinians had been located under the ruins of a building, which means some of them died out of suffocation. Of course, this is dubbed self – defense by Israel.
Conferences and more conferences
The split of the Arab League peaked officially today. Saudi Arabia and Egypt clearly displayed their muscles by blocking the Qataris from having a quorum to meet under the patronage of the Arab League, and take decisions in that regard. This however doesn't mean Qatar is a weakling compared to the former two. Qatar managed to gather 13 voters within the Arab league despite Egypt and Saudi Arabia's obstructions, even though that was not enough to hold a quorum. The Saudi Regime and their allies the Egyptian Regime never forgave how Prince Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani took the lead in spearheading a Lebanese Dialogue that brought a temporary peace to Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Abbas still argues that the peace treaty is under threat, and still unaware that there never was anything called Peace. The Israeli war-machinery never stopped to do peace. Elsewhere the Doha conference kicked off in order to discuss different means of halting the war. Again, no results, but interesting headlines popped out.
Hamas's Mishaal was present, which is natural. Where there is no Fatah, there is Hamas. Hamas repeated their insistence on halting the butchery of the innocent civilians. He argued that Israeli Forces should withdraw from Gaza, cut their war, end the blockade, open the routes of Gaza, and hold Israel accountable for their war crimes. He insisted on how the Palestinians are practically unarmed. He insisted on the time factor, where as they speak, more citizens are dying. Hamas had secured its representation of the Palestinian resistance and the sufferings of the people of Gaza. He also stressed on how Israel is trying to invent new realities, something that Rice supported. In her own words, the seize fire will not take place or else a temporary peace will take place and a new war. Nevertheless, she failed to mention who is the real aggressor on the issue. Mishaal also described the harsh conditions the people of Gaza are living through, and equated his resistance to that of Hezbollah where he argued that it was the same resistance that expelled Israel from the Southern Lebanese region and Gaza. He also highlighted that the resistance of the Palestinians is capable to achieve victory, mainly because they can remain alive after Israel bombed everything. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, Israel's main purpose is not to dismantle Hamas, rather the Zionist country needs Hamas to gain more funds, arms, and settle internal scores in the elections. For example Ehud Barak jumped 17% in the Israeli opinion when the offensive started, which made him the primary competitor to Levni for the Prime Minister position. Nevertheless, Mishaal's pleas to save the Palestinians was fully felt, but the method he gave his pleas, with a steadfast position, allowed him to divulge the charisma he has. Unlike Abbas who is begging the international community to send an international force, similar to UNIFIL, but to bring Hamas under control so that he can live in peace Israel; hence disregarding all the demonstrations that took place in the West Bank in solidarity with Gaza, to which he barely expressed anything.
I have to admit, what nerves of steel Meshaal displayed, specially in less than 24 hours the Israelis killed his colleague, Hamas's minister of interior Said Siam, along with his brother and son.
The Syrian President
The Syrian President spoke next, as always, he took the leadership of opposing the Israelis and fighting for the Arab cause. He gave credit to the Lebanese resistance for defeating the Israelis in 2000 and 2006, and how both the Lebanese and Palestinians are exporting the spirit of resistance to elsewhere in the Arab world. Indirectly, he separated the Arab world to those who surrender, and those who are resisting. He also argued how those who achieve peace by resisting an occupier, and those who accept peace in seeking their own interests. He also, to give himself credit for the July war, also stressed on the importance of standing next to a country. Although as far as I remember, Syria made money on Lebanon's expense due to the July war, he refused to open a front on his side, denied any Israeli missiles falling on Syrian grounds, and probably the credit he takes is using his land to smuggle weaponry to Hezbollah and their allies.
Nevertheless, the Syrian president, in my personal opinion scored highly in the face of other Arab leaders. While it is true that the majority of the Arab citizens are frustrated by their helplessness, he used the 1970s language of the 'Arab revolutionary' where he summarized that time is not on the Israeli side, but he got philosophical on how each generation becomes more wrathful to Israeli brutality. Throughout his speech, he also hinted to Egypt and Saudi Arabia on their unwillingness to do anything about the on-going massacres. He also expressed the distrust of the Arab world in the International Court to hold Israel accountable.
Finally, his contribution to the summit is by suspending the indirect negotatiations with Israel, spoke in an apocalyptic manner in regards to Gaza and the Golan Heights witnessing a new victory, and the importance of funding the Palestinians with all means possible, ranging from materialistic aid to moral boast.
Lebanese President
The Lebanese President, Michel Suleiman, was next to speak. Unlike the days of Emil Lahoud, for once the Lebanese President's speech was different than what the Syrians wanted him to deliver. The other side of the story, Michel Suleiman's travel to Qatar was dubbed as Hezbollah and Amal imposing their demands on the Lebanese President to travel. Nevertheless, the speech he read in Doha was quiet different. Again, the Suleiman succeeded in copy pasting demands of what was known as the 'Opposition' and 14th of March demands. The Prince of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, back in the July war was regarded a 14th of March supporter, now he is regarded as an 8th of March follower.
President Suleiman's speech began with how Lebanon 'victoriously' extracted UN resolution 1701, and insisted on how Israel continued to breach it. He gave credit to the Lebanese citizens, the Lebanese resistance, and the Lebanese army for crushing the Israeli offensive of 2006. Nevertheless, Suleiman's speech rotated around on keeping Lebanon out of war with Israel, and stressed on how Lebanon's role is non-alignment, whereby its role is to tackle those rifts in the Arab World. Of course, he didn't give any hints on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or any other country, rather projecting on how the Arabs should be united and gave a long-run period for that, which till then probably half of the people of Gaza would be killed.
Nevertheless, being a president of country that defeated Israel on three different eras, he had the aura to escalate, but didn't escalate beyond providing sympathy to the people of Gaza. Prince Hamad bin Khalifa hailed the President as being part of the resistance when he was the head of the Lebanese Army.
It has to be noted, that the Qatari Prince, and the Lebanese & Syrian Presidents, appeared while reading their speeches as if they are in the middle of an Arabic reading test. Other than Meshaal's eloquent Arabic, the others repeated several times Arabic words, and corrected grammar rules as they read.
The Moon Islands , Mauritania, and Iraq
The Moon islands are a couple of small islands that were glued into a republic. While repeating the atrocities of the Israelis, and like the earlier presidents, blamed the Arab leaderships for taking so much time in taking any actions, proposed to form a committee from the attendees, and tour around the major players in the International Community to raise awareness against the Israelis, and properly to unify media efforts in exposing the Israeli brutality, mainly to the Western audience.
Mauritania was probably the most hilarious country of them all. Just recovering from a military coup and preserving a peace treaty with Israel, all eyes went on the speaker. Nobody understood anything what he said, as his Arabic was rather very weak, and he didn't discuss anything about cutting ties with Israel. He did condemn the Israeli brutality, based on what was understood, but that was it. Everyone issued relief sighs of 'Thank Heaven the torture is over' when he finished.
The Iraqi Vice President was next, as much as he condemned the Israeli aggression, he reiterated Iraq's historical role in standing next to Palestine. Nevertheless, he didn't express anything about the US intervention in Iraq, nor whether Iraq as a nation state still exists theoretically with all the cantons present there. But I also realized that their minister of education was targeted in a bomb there, and I wondered for how long this man will stay alive.
Iran's Ahmadinejad
As probably participating as a guest, he expressed his ideas as well. We all know what Iran's role in arming Hezbollah, and giving them the right technology in beating Israel's ass out of Lebanon, then watching how their infantry were sitting ducks to Hezbollah's warriors. Who would thought that those Merkava tanks are destructible? Not complaining on seeing a popped out tank of that caliber. Yet, the Iranian president repeated the same words where Israel's attrocities in Lebanon and Palestine had been repeating themselves for so long, and demanded that the leadership of Israel should be held in a court.
In Parallel...
The Arab League's official meeting of foreign ministers FINALLY agreed for calling the opening of the borders of Gaza. In a nutshell, that is the biggest crap I ever heard for a while. After three weeks of butchery, the Arab League till this day simply issued out such a decision? After what, 1133 (so far), had been killed, and over 5000 wounded? Isn’t it ironical that such decisions come out when Israel is so close to accept a seize fire agreement? That doesn't stop the butchery of the Palestinians...
Collisions also took place in the West Bank between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. In a large demonstration in solidarity with the people of Gaza, a small group raised the flags of Hamas, where the PA security beat and arrested them. Hence, Abbas reinforces the division between Fatah and Hamas. BBC's article, under the title of Gaza and West Bank: Growing Divide explains it in a nice way.
Bush's final speech:
Bush hailed himself as giving democracy for different countries; some of those he named were Lebanon, Kosovo, and Iraq.
I accuse Bush of being the biggest liar the world has ever seen, and makes Saddam Hussein look like an angel next to him. For starters, Bush didn't do anything to Lebanon, he sold out on his allies (yet again) the 14th of March, leaving them stranded in the middle of nowhere. The expulsion of the Syrian army didn't come from Bush, rather a strong reaction of the Lebanese on the assassination of Harriri and the fact they were fed up from their crap. As a matter of fact, it was his 'Green Card' to the Israelis that allowed all those Lebanese and Palestinian citizens to flourish.
Kosovo was totally irrelevant to Bush's policy, It was Bill Clinton's policy to the Balkans that gave Kosovo its independence, amidst never-ending chaos in the Balkans that secured Kosovo its independence.
Finally, Iraq, Bush gave them no democracy at all. He shattered a country into a three way ethnic divisions, and gave the al-Qaeda the space to crawl into Iraq. His war on terror cost the Iraqis over 650,000 citizens, and that was prior to the execution of the tyrant Saddam. He waged a war on Iraq under the banner of saving the Americans from weapons of mass destruction which were never found, then turned out Jesus inspired him. He also ruined the US economy, which in turn ruined the global economy by spending over 800 billion dollars a year on upgrading weapons, and producing unneeded weapons that no way a group of Qaeda or even the Iraqi regime was able to counter.
Democracy in Bush meant also to support the Moubarak regime, the Saudi regime, and the Jordanian regime. This led the Muslim Brotherhood in specific to grow even stronger in Egypt, while Saudi Arabia's instability is growing even more.
I will tackle his farewell speeches in details. But I would like to add one note: Afghanistan:
His 'War on Drugs' prior to his 'War on Terror' made him a buffoon in protecting his own citizens, when he was warned. Earlier US Administrations funded the Taliban who were actually needed to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Actually in a period of four months prior to 9/11, he disregarded the issue of Bin Laden wanting to strike the US, and gave the Taliban government almost 45 million dollars in fighting drugs and opium. Ironic, isn't it?
Bush is responsible for almost every civilian's death that took place, for promoting dictatorships, and even funding terrorists like al-Qaeda. So the hell with you Bush, and I sure wish there is a hell, to see you rotting in it.
Showing posts with label Muslim Brotherhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslim Brotherhood. Show all posts
Friday, January 16, 2009
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Enemy of my Enemy is My Friend?
Lately in the left-wing and activist circles, a discussion has been heated up regarding alliances, and its justifications. Mainly the theme rotates around: “My Enemy’s enemy is my friend.” Such concepts appear in terms of 14th of March supporting US involvement in Lebanon (as long as it supports their goals), opposing Iran and Syrian intervention, or witnessing 14th of Marchers supporting Fatah while the opposition supporting Hamas, Chavez, and Galloway. Another logic would be the secular Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) and the Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) supporting Hezbullah and their coalitions in the name of resistance. Same applies when a member of the Democratic Left would tell me “Comrade Seniora” (which is contradictory if you ask me since the latter supports 100% free market as well as burying Lebanon in the WTO.)
Europe of the past would fit our investigation. Probably we witnessed such alliances being forged when one powerful figure became too powerful and forced the others to bandwagon against that ruler. One example would be Napoleon, whereby his blunt theme was “Unified Europe” under his self-proclaimed empire. The 19th Century itself was an era of kingdoms and alliance fluctuations. Different Monarchs/republics fluctuated their alliances according to interest, in order to establish a balance of power. This might fit the Realist School in international affairs, whereby nations switch alliances to maintain a balance of power. No Republic/Monarchy would enter an alliance to make one nation stronger than the others to the extent being unstopped. World War I witnessed the explosion of these alliances whereby few nations (Axis) saw they had the chance to balance against if not completely annihilate their opponents.
The first time we can witness the alliance falsely assumed is the Brest-Litovsk conference, which resulted at first the invasion of the Soviet Union by Monarchy Germany. Indeed, Lenin and Trotsky from the beginning found they had no choice from the beginning but gain time to organize their army. Karl Radeck also found the same logic and tried to spread the ideas of Marx and Engels by distributing Pamphlets of Communism to the German soldiers. At a one point, Monarchy Germany declared they are defending themselves, Western Europe, and the whole world from Bolshevik toxic ideas.
The first time we can regard the concept Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend was witnessed to its full scale was the unholy alliance between Stalinist Moscow and Capitalist Washington DC during World War II. The allies tried to overthrow the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution of 1917, but Trotsky’s defenses were capable to block them and repel outside Soviet borders 11 major invading armies, not to forget the civil war ignited by the West against the Red Army. The first time I say the unholy alliance was formed between tyrant Stalin and greedy Franklin Roosevelt. There was no choice in the mater, lunatic Hitler swept through Europe, and made to the borders of Leningrad and Stalingrad, while the whole West except for Britain (the fact it was an island played a role). Stalin started his unholy alliance with Hitler to seize 50% of Poland, but then his plan backfired on him when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. After a relapse of six months, Stalin recovered and played his plan B card. It wasn’t planned actually, the United States needed Russia to remain standing, Russia (and here I say Russia instead of Soviet Union because Stalin was desperate to survive the offensive and introduced Russian Nationalism with the Logo: ‘Fight For Mother Russia’; not bad for a Georgian fake Communist). Eventually Nikita Khrushchev spilled the bottle in his memoirs (Khrushchev Remembers; interviewed by Roshenko) that 81% of the Soviet heavy equipment were merged between US and Russian technology. Hitler failed to take over Russia and its rich resources, but eventually his army collapsed at two powerful fronts.
I went to the details of World War II because this is par excellence the number 1 unholy alliance to occur in the history of the world (unless we consider the alliance which included Lebanese Forces and Hezbollah voting for each other more awkward. Now, I will move to two unholy alliances that go parallel to each other, and till now they seem to be holding: RESPECT in the UK and Kifaya in Egypt. Both also included two unholy alliances that are really parallel to each other. George Galloway’s coalition includes the Muslim Brotherhood and The Socialist Workers’ Party. The coalition emerged with good performance on the syndicate level. Galloway took the opportunity to bandwagon with the Muslim Brotherhood over there, while the Muslim Brotherhood accepted a coalition made of heresy committers or atheists (in the case of the SWP). The SWP stepped down on its revolutionary goals or shorter run goals, which is opposing US imperialism by all means available, and hence weakening the Marxist movement in England. George Galloway is the spearhead of the RESPECT coalition and the second in command is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The SWP blindly supports Hezbollah for example because Hezbollah for them defeated Israel. Moreover, the spearhead of the RESPECT coalition, Mr. Galloway disregards who opposes US imperialism and supports blindly anyone who stands up to their faces. Galloway eventually became a hero in the Lebanese arena when he broke the media silence on Lebanon as it was being bombarded by the Israelis with his famous interview with Sky News. Yet, Galloway for me as a revolutionary Marxist, his influences are more negative rather positive. The goal is not parliamentary gains, or political points, rather establishing a workers’ movement that would achieve the Proletariat’s demands. This takes a lot of effort, and hopefully our esteemed comrades of the SWP would realize to use their immense knowledge of Marxism and experience for that goal.
The Kifaya movement in Egypt is a similar scenario. The Comrades never learnt by supporting Jamal Abdul Nasser to become the President of Egypt, they signed their doom with a two-fold seal. The short run for our comrades in Egypt was to get rid of British colonialism, and hence they went blindly after Abdul Nasser, and he repaid them with placing a blind eye on the Muslim Brotherhood as they devoured Marxists from one side, and then he butchered with them (well, not only Egypt, but Syria and Lebanon as well except those blindly following Russia, such as Khaled Bikdash). Later, Nasser foolishly thought he can use the Socialists and the Muslim Brotherhood to balance against each other. Only difference, the Brotherhood in prisons increased in numbers, specially after the humiliating defeat of Nasser in a time-interval less than a week, which was the Six Day war of 1967, where Nasser as an undisputed leader collapsed, and secular Arab Nationalism was replaced with Islam as the only salvation for the Arabs. As economy worsened, the Brotherhood and its look-a-like expanded through its Islamist Social Welfare system while Sadat (as well as Moubarak) abused their position as Presidents to maximize profits and powers while the people were starving.
Kifaya emerged as a reaction to the never ending rule of Moubarak. Kifaya is sort of motivated by the Zapatista logo, Ya Basta!, because Kifaya’s translation to English means Enough! Unlike RESPECT which is forged out of three primary partners, Kifaya embodied anyone who despised Moubarak’s regime. This includes the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies (most powerful driving force), the Communists, the Arab Nationalists, Socialists, intellectual movements, Feminists, Syndicate, lawyers, and of course alter-globalization movements such as AJIJ. Yet, the comrades over there never learnt their lesson, that short run goals (ousting Moubarak out of office) will bring them more trouble if they are not well prepared. If you ask any socialist over there, they will reply “first get rid of Moubarak, then when the time we and the Brotherhood encounter each other comes, we will handle it.” Problem is that Egypt has the Islamist networks and welfare systems have been spreading around to the extent it makes the return of a real organized Marxist movement semi-impossible at this rate. The Marxists should focus on building themselves as a first priority, rather rush blindly after Kifaya. Now, I may sound I am undermining the efforts of our comrades in Egypt, but on the contrary, I salute every single one of them who raises his finger at Moubarak’s regime, which at least he is regarded as a US satellite installed over Cairo and Egypt. Yet, the Marxists’ primary goal is to build themselves from scratch (same as our situation in Lebanon), and I know it is difficult, but I can foresee that a coalition with the strongest party (Brotherhod) if they win, it will be disastrous to the progressive reforms and welfare system of the Marxists. The Islamist networks offered the majority of the Egyptians and non-Muslim foreigners their services equally, but the long-run is still not showing ok. After a religious movement s a right-wing and we shouldn’t commit the same errors of Galloway cheering el-Assad. So, in such cases, is my enemy’s enemy my friend? I think not specially if there is no progressive core essence on their side.
Lenin and Trotsky knew that perfectly well back in 1917. Lenin wouldn’t reconcile his Marxist goals for nothing. He was offered different positions when the February revolution took over. The Right-Wingers offered him and Trotsky several cabinet positions, Trotsky, like Lenin, saw that only a workers’ revolution would bring the salvation to the Proletariat. The Bolsheviks remained low profile and indirectly a small hunted down sect while attempting to preserve their core as revolutionary, progressive, scientific, and Marxist. Sadly, few glitches escaped, and Stalin emerged out of these glitches. The theme is “no enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The only time Lenin and Trotsky agreed that the Bolsheviks to ally with other factions when they split them (Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks) into a reactionary right-wingers, and the revolutionary left-wings, with them at what Lenin would call years later “Commanding Heights”. The road to victory is always long and harsh, and mind you, there is no such thing as a back-route and easy victory, the only victory is through the emancipation of the society into Marxism and its full mobility into class struggle rather trust blindly a group whose agenda is the gradual annhilation of non-believers.
MFL
Europe of the past would fit our investigation. Probably we witnessed such alliances being forged when one powerful figure became too powerful and forced the others to bandwagon against that ruler. One example would be Napoleon, whereby his blunt theme was “Unified Europe” under his self-proclaimed empire. The 19th Century itself was an era of kingdoms and alliance fluctuations. Different Monarchs/republics fluctuated their alliances according to interest, in order to establish a balance of power. This might fit the Realist School in international affairs, whereby nations switch alliances to maintain a balance of power. No Republic/Monarchy would enter an alliance to make one nation stronger than the others to the extent being unstopped. World War I witnessed the explosion of these alliances whereby few nations (Axis) saw they had the chance to balance against if not completely annihilate their opponents.
The first time we can witness the alliance falsely assumed is the Brest-Litovsk conference, which resulted at first the invasion of the Soviet Union by Monarchy Germany. Indeed, Lenin and Trotsky from the beginning found they had no choice from the beginning but gain time to organize their army. Karl Radeck also found the same logic and tried to spread the ideas of Marx and Engels by distributing Pamphlets of Communism to the German soldiers. At a one point, Monarchy Germany declared they are defending themselves, Western Europe, and the whole world from Bolshevik toxic ideas.
The first time we can regard the concept Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend was witnessed to its full scale was the unholy alliance between Stalinist Moscow and Capitalist Washington DC during World War II. The allies tried to overthrow the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution of 1917, but Trotsky’s defenses were capable to block them and repel outside Soviet borders 11 major invading armies, not to forget the civil war ignited by the West against the Red Army. The first time I say the unholy alliance was formed between tyrant Stalin and greedy Franklin Roosevelt. There was no choice in the mater, lunatic Hitler swept through Europe, and made to the borders of Leningrad and Stalingrad, while the whole West except for Britain (the fact it was an island played a role). Stalin started his unholy alliance with Hitler to seize 50% of Poland, but then his plan backfired on him when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. After a relapse of six months, Stalin recovered and played his plan B card. It wasn’t planned actually, the United States needed Russia to remain standing, Russia (and here I say Russia instead of Soviet Union because Stalin was desperate to survive the offensive and introduced Russian Nationalism with the Logo: ‘Fight For Mother Russia’; not bad for a Georgian fake Communist). Eventually Nikita Khrushchev spilled the bottle in his memoirs (Khrushchev Remembers; interviewed by Roshenko) that 81% of the Soviet heavy equipment were merged between US and Russian technology. Hitler failed to take over Russia and its rich resources, but eventually his army collapsed at two powerful fronts.
I went to the details of World War II because this is par excellence the number 1 unholy alliance to occur in the history of the world (unless we consider the alliance which included Lebanese Forces and Hezbollah voting for each other more awkward. Now, I will move to two unholy alliances that go parallel to each other, and till now they seem to be holding: RESPECT in the UK and Kifaya in Egypt. Both also included two unholy alliances that are really parallel to each other. George Galloway’s coalition includes the Muslim Brotherhood and The Socialist Workers’ Party. The coalition emerged with good performance on the syndicate level. Galloway took the opportunity to bandwagon with the Muslim Brotherhood over there, while the Muslim Brotherhood accepted a coalition made of heresy committers or atheists (in the case of the SWP). The SWP stepped down on its revolutionary goals or shorter run goals, which is opposing US imperialism by all means available, and hence weakening the Marxist movement in England. George Galloway is the spearhead of the RESPECT coalition and the second in command is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The SWP blindly supports Hezbollah for example because Hezbollah for them defeated Israel. Moreover, the spearhead of the RESPECT coalition, Mr. Galloway disregards who opposes US imperialism and supports blindly anyone who stands up to their faces. Galloway eventually became a hero in the Lebanese arena when he broke the media silence on Lebanon as it was being bombarded by the Israelis with his famous interview with Sky News. Yet, Galloway for me as a revolutionary Marxist, his influences are more negative rather positive. The goal is not parliamentary gains, or political points, rather establishing a workers’ movement that would achieve the Proletariat’s demands. This takes a lot of effort, and hopefully our esteemed comrades of the SWP would realize to use their immense knowledge of Marxism and experience for that goal.
The Kifaya movement in Egypt is a similar scenario. The Comrades never learnt by supporting Jamal Abdul Nasser to become the President of Egypt, they signed their doom with a two-fold seal. The short run for our comrades in Egypt was to get rid of British colonialism, and hence they went blindly after Abdul Nasser, and he repaid them with placing a blind eye on the Muslim Brotherhood as they devoured Marxists from one side, and then he butchered with them (well, not only Egypt, but Syria and Lebanon as well except those blindly following Russia, such as Khaled Bikdash). Later, Nasser foolishly thought he can use the Socialists and the Muslim Brotherhood to balance against each other. Only difference, the Brotherhood in prisons increased in numbers, specially after the humiliating defeat of Nasser in a time-interval less than a week, which was the Six Day war of 1967, where Nasser as an undisputed leader collapsed, and secular Arab Nationalism was replaced with Islam as the only salvation for the Arabs. As economy worsened, the Brotherhood and its look-a-like expanded through its Islamist Social Welfare system while Sadat (as well as Moubarak) abused their position as Presidents to maximize profits and powers while the people were starving.
Kifaya emerged as a reaction to the never ending rule of Moubarak. Kifaya is sort of motivated by the Zapatista logo, Ya Basta!, because Kifaya’s translation to English means Enough! Unlike RESPECT which is forged out of three primary partners, Kifaya embodied anyone who despised Moubarak’s regime. This includes the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies (most powerful driving force), the Communists, the Arab Nationalists, Socialists, intellectual movements, Feminists, Syndicate, lawyers, and of course alter-globalization movements such as AJIJ. Yet, the comrades over there never learnt their lesson, that short run goals (ousting Moubarak out of office) will bring them more trouble if they are not well prepared. If you ask any socialist over there, they will reply “first get rid of Moubarak, then when the time we and the Brotherhood encounter each other comes, we will handle it.” Problem is that Egypt has the Islamist networks and welfare systems have been spreading around to the extent it makes the return of a real organized Marxist movement semi-impossible at this rate. The Marxists should focus on building themselves as a first priority, rather rush blindly after Kifaya. Now, I may sound I am undermining the efforts of our comrades in Egypt, but on the contrary, I salute every single one of them who raises his finger at Moubarak’s regime, which at least he is regarded as a US satellite installed over Cairo and Egypt. Yet, the Marxists’ primary goal is to build themselves from scratch (same as our situation in Lebanon), and I know it is difficult, but I can foresee that a coalition with the strongest party (Brotherhod) if they win, it will be disastrous to the progressive reforms and welfare system of the Marxists. The Islamist networks offered the majority of the Egyptians and non-Muslim foreigners their services equally, but the long-run is still not showing ok. After a religious movement s a right-wing and we shouldn’t commit the same errors of Galloway cheering el-Assad. So, in such cases, is my enemy’s enemy my friend? I think not specially if there is no progressive core essence on their side.
Lenin and Trotsky knew that perfectly well back in 1917. Lenin wouldn’t reconcile his Marxist goals for nothing. He was offered different positions when the February revolution took over. The Right-Wingers offered him and Trotsky several cabinet positions, Trotsky, like Lenin, saw that only a workers’ revolution would bring the salvation to the Proletariat. The Bolsheviks remained low profile and indirectly a small hunted down sect while attempting to preserve their core as revolutionary, progressive, scientific, and Marxist. Sadly, few glitches escaped, and Stalin emerged out of these glitches. The theme is “no enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The only time Lenin and Trotsky agreed that the Bolsheviks to ally with other factions when they split them (Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks) into a reactionary right-wingers, and the revolutionary left-wings, with them at what Lenin would call years later “Commanding Heights”. The road to victory is always long and harsh, and mind you, there is no such thing as a back-route and easy victory, the only victory is through the emancipation of the society into Marxism and its full mobility into class struggle rather trust blindly a group whose agenda is the gradual annhilation of non-believers.
MFL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
