Stop confusing Kurdistans! Syria’s leftists must turn home to Assad

February 22, 2018

by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker Blog

Stop confusing Kurdistans! Syria’s leftists must turn home to Assad

As Assad-backed troops enter Afrin to fight Turkish invaders, the Syrian conflict has entered its decisive crossroads:

Will Northern Syria cooperate with Damascus, or not? This is the key to Syrian peace and territorial unity.

It’s also the question which will make or break claims that a Northern Syrian enclave which refuses to help expel uninvited Americans can somehow be a “leftist project”.

(I say it is a leftist project…IF they return to full cooperation with the Syrian government. I will detail my analysis of the political structure of “Rojava” in an upcoming article – this article only deals with immediate political concerns.)

No question can be answered, however, until I clarify some key facts about Northern Syria. Indeed, reporting about Northern Syria in the West is rife with the most fundamental errors, and the most egregiously false claims.

Firstly, the Kurds in Syria have only ever asked for autonomy, not independence.

People assume all Kurds are like Iraqi Kurds – separatists – but the Kurds in Syria want to stay within the Syrian state. This disavowal of independence is an undisputed, long-standing (if underreported) fact. Indeed, the arrival of pro-government forces in Afrin was met with celebrations – the “Arab Socialist Baath Party” is a nationalist one, it seems to have been forgotten. The fact that such celebrations could possibly raise some eyebrows only shows how terrible the West’s mainstream reporting is in Syria.

The second most important point is this: “Rojava”, “Syrian Kurdistan”, “Northern Syria” or the “Democratic Federation of Northern Syria” – whatever it is called – is among the most interesting (and newest) leftist projects in the world today.

For that reason alone, nobody is reporting on it honestly.

After all, the Western mainstream media has no governmental or private mandate to support the 99%…much less in a Muslim country…still less in an anti-Zionist country like Syria!

Rojava’s governmental culture is based around ethnic equality, collective unity, local emancipation and undoubtedly socialist-and-not-capitalist inspired democratic & economic ideals. Therefore…the capitalist-imperialist West totally ignores all of that and solely focuses on identity politics: thus, it’s always reported as just “the Kurds”.

That leads to the third important issue: foolishly lumping all the Kurds across Southwest Asia together, thereby assuming that there are no regional differences: For Western media it is as if Kurds walk around all day in a special “Kurdish daze”, so enamored with being Kurdish that the countries and local neighborhoods where they live have absolutely no effect on them or their worldview. Their “Kurdishness” is all-consuming, it seems! The theory underpinning this is identity politics: if you are Kurdish, then you must all think alike.

So it makes no difference if you grew up/lived in Saddam’s Iraq, modern Iran, Baathist Syria, or Istanbul: You are a Kurd and – as a Kurd – you can only possibly see things via the lens of your Kurdishness. But only the West proffers this absurd, one-dimensional view of the Kurds – not the Middle Easterners who live alongside them.

A fourth problem – an even larger one for those in Syria – is that the Kurds in Syria are not even “Kurds”!

What I mean is: Kurds are around ½ of the population of Northern Syria, but only compose around 1/3rd in some of the biggest areas of Rojava, such as Membij. There are Assyrians and Chaldeans – they are Christian. There are Sunni Arabs. There are Turkmen, who are not allied to Turkey and are Syrian patriots despite their name. There are Circassians, Armenians, Yazidis, Chechens and others. Hard as it is for non-Muslims to believe: All these people like each other, live & work together, intermarry and have done so for more than a millennia. You cannot even say that all the fighters in this area are Kurds, either, because the Syrian Democratic Forces forces – who helped rout ISIL – are majority non-Kurd.

But they are all Syrian – and they want it to stay that way.

This IS the case…even though Kurds in Iraq aimed for independence…and despite the Western anti-Assad propaganda.

Clearly, a major overhaul on the idea of “Kurd” is needed for many….

The Kurdish ‘Bad Century’ is relative to where they live

Anyone can have a bad century and finish as winners…look at the Chicago Cubs.

So in Northern Syria the “Kurds” are not even Kurdish nearly half the time, LOL, but let’s be like the West and look at the “Kurds” across their 4 main nations.

If we accept that “Kurdishness” is not all-consuming , we can see how the experiences of “Kurds” in Iraq (which also compose Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkmen, etc.) – who lived under Saddam Hussein’s wars, were massacred by the anti-Iranian MKO homicidal cult, lived in a country forced to endure material shortages caused by US sanctions from 1990-2003, and who are enduring US invasion and occupation – are fundamentally different than the experiences of “Kurds” in Syria…where these things did not happen.

The experience of “Kurds” in Syria – which is bordered by the menacing, illegitimate state of Israel, which had a different political conception & practice of Baathism than Iraq (which provoked more enmity than cooperation between the two since 1966), which was invaded not by a “coalition of the willing” but radical terrorists, which is on the cusp of benefitting from the extraordinary national unity which can only be created by victoriously defeating foreign invaders – are fundamentally different than the experiences of “Kurds” in Iraq.

“Kurdishness” in Turkey is an vastly larger issue than Syria, because there are vastly more of them than in anywhere else.

“Kurdishness” in Iran is totally different than in any of the four primary Kurdish countries: they are more accepted there than any other country.

This is a result of the acceptance promoted by Iran’s modern, popular revolution of 1979 (by definition, you can’t have a “modern, popular revolution” based on racism/ethnic superiority). Indeed, Iran’s definitive cultural “female Iran-Iraq war experience” was the best-selling, award-winning story told by a Kurdish immigrant from Iraq to Iran – in the book“Da”, which means “mother” (not in Farsi). Such a thing could never happen in Turkey, obviously, nor Arab nationalist Syria and Iraq. This modern acceptance is why Iran is the only nation of the four where there is no chance of fomenting a Kurdish uprising in Iran: being Iranian and Kurdish is not any sort of contradiction – they are incorporated in the national self-conception about as much as any numeric minority can reasonably be, as the success of “Da” illustrates. And for this reason – which is called (Iranian Islamic socialist) “modern democracy” – there is no chance of any sort of a “Kurdish uprising” in Iran. Even amid this ongoing historical era of Kurdish militancy across the entire region, the PJAK Party (Iranian Kurdish separatists) gave up armed operations in Iran in 2011: it’s useless – Iran is different, and on the Kurdish question as well. Israel could spend a zillion usuriously-gained dollars on such a project and it would get nowhere…which is why they spend their time in the southeast (in Baluchestan with Jundallah).

And, to repeat, because this is so important: The people of Northern Syria have never, ever said they want anything but autonomy within Syria. This proves that Syrian “Kurds” are not Iraqi “Kurds”, where Barzani and their bid for independence have been neutralised…much to the dismay of the US & Israel.

An often ignored (or not known) point is that Iraqi “Kurds” had been wooed (or led astray) by the US for two decades via preferential economic, political, cultural and immigration policies. The US paid for a lot of goodwill over many years. In Syria – LOL, not at all. So, Syrian “Kurds” have not come into contact with the American ideology anywhere as much…and their ideology is necessarily different (despite the overpowering Kurdish daze they walk around in, LOL!)

Only by ignoring these realities can one assume the “Kurds” of both regions share the same political outlook in February 2018.

So, I hope we are bit less konfused on who the “Kurds” really are.

Now, because of the leftist nature of northern Syria, we must de-konfuse our notions of their political ideology.

But I’m going to postpone that to part two – let’s talk immediate politics.

A very interesting leftist political project…but not if they ally with the US

It was with great alarm that greeted the recent US declaration that they will keep 2,000 troops in Northern Syria – that news turned off many to the possibility that northern Syria could possibly be leftist.

And rightly so, but Washington’s plans are simply their desire – there has been no official political deal: Rojavan leaders insist their cooperation with the US is strictly military to fight ISIL. Indeed, they have grown up in Syria, which has been attacked by Israel…but now they are going to be allies?

Certainly, the downfall of Barzani in Iraq is a blow to US/Israeli imperialism – so…of course they are refocusing to Northern Syria. But that doesn’t mean they will get what they want!

Certainly, Northern Syria cannot allow a military base inside its borders. There can be no “Syrian Guantanamo” to permanently menace a newly-liberated Syria, like in Cuba.

Let’s keep a couple war realities in mind: It’s not as if Northern Syrians could have stopped the US from planting soldiers and using an airstrip – there has been a huge war, after all, with a well-heeled army called ISIL to stop.

Let’s also remember that the Northern Syrians work with everybody to fight ISIL in Northern Syria: Russia, the US, Damascus, Iran, Hezbollah – everyone but Turkey. (Obviously, the US both fights terrorism and supports it.)

Rojavans…it may be now or never to fight for Syrian unity

The invasion by Turkey means Northern Syrians have now reached the point of no return: to work with Turkey (and thus the US) is to betray the Syrian people which Rojavans have always claimed to want to be.

Therefore, Syria is on the verge of peace and total victory…or major civil war: It will be decided by inter-Syrian diplomacy. Negotiations have been ongoing between the two areas for years, of course, and they are no doubt in overdrive right now.

The fundamental problem is this:

Damascus has always rejected the idea of a federated state and autonomy for Northern Syria. Northern Syria has held their ground militarily, and Damascus has been too occupied with ISIL to demand cooperation…but it’s February 2018, and here we are.

So what will Damascus do, and what will Rojava do?

I am not a Syrian, and thus my opinion should be worth very little – the future of Syria is only for Syrians to decide – but to me it looks like this:

Rojavans may view siding with Damascus as a risk regarding the re-installation of some Arab Nationalist policies they dislike (Rojava has 3 official languages for a reason, for example)…but siding with the Americans is a guarantee of leftist betrayal, a guarantee of a failure and a guarantee of regional bloodshed for decades.

Maybe Rojava can expel ISIL on their own, but they cannot expel the US and Turkey without Damascus…and they must be expelled. How can these troops stay if Damascus and Rojavans cooperate? They cannot, whatever the Pentagon wants.

Therefore, at some point – a point quite soon – Rojavans will need to openly embrace Damascus, in the name of Syrian unity and in the realization of issues larger than their own interests and sacrifices.

On the other side, there is nothing stopping Damascus from making concessions to win over Rojava…and yet, one easily sees the government’s hesitance: Making major changes to Syria’s political structure seems to require the democratic approval of the entire nation via vote. The granting of wholesale structural changes for one-third of the country during wartime appears to lack democratic legitimacy.

Rojava is where most of Syria’s oil is located. Certainly, those funds cannot be made the complete “autonomous” property of Rojavans. One easily sees how “granting autonomy” is a major question that goes beyond just the decades-long elevation of Arab culture over the culture of Turkmen, Chaldeans, Kurds, etc.….

Of course, it should not be surprising that Assad’s view of Rojava never gets an airing…but given Rojava’s leftist bonafides, nobody ever talks about them at all either. “Keep ‘em konfused with just ‘Kurds’” is the media line….

To sum up my view of the immediate political situation: Unity requires faith – Northern Syrians need to trust their fellow citizens that their success has earned them good faith credit in Syria’s common future.

And, finally, what choice does Rojava have? Turkey will never accept them (this is the pretext for their invasion), nor Damascus, nor Iraq. The only ones who will are the US and Israel…and that is leftist?!?!

No…this is why I predict a reconciliation. The failure of Syrian-Syrian diplomacy at this juncture is…civil war.

And who wants that in Syria?

In an upcoming second article I will examine what is the “leftist ideology” of Rojava, and how these ideas might interact with Arab Socialist Baathism in a unified, free, victorious state of Syria.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.

Related Videos

Related News

Advertisements

Gilad Atzmon and Islam

January 14, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction GA: In the following book review Jay Knott suggests that  Being in Time scores a very high mark on many fronts, however, the text fails to attack Muslims and Islam. In the last two decades I have been accused of many things but this is the first time I am criticised  for ‘not being an Islamophobe.’ I have met Knott before and I think that regardless of the peculiar premise of this text,  it deserves attention. 

Wiping-Away-Sin-with-Islam-.jpg

Gilad Atzmon And Islam

Book Review by Jay Knott

A review of Being In Time – a post-political manifesto, Gilad Atzmon, Skyscraper Publications, 2017

“There is just one point where I have encountered a difficulty” – Russell to Frege, 1902.

I introduced a talk by Gilad Atzmon, and organised a reading group to discuss his first book, “The Wandering Who?”, about Jewish identity politics. We had many criticisms of it.

The new book is much broader, and better. I have only one major criticism. This article is about that criticism, but though as a result it’s mostly negative, I actually think this book is a major contribution to understanding the times we live in. It explains Donald Trump, Brexit, the left, identity politics, political correctness, and especially, US support for Jewish supremacy in the Middle East. It is undogmatic, finding inputs from a wide range of sources. Atzmon even manages to get something useful out of the book “The Bell Curve” while rejecting its central premise, IQ. I mostly agreed with much of “Being in Time”.

But chapter four, “United Against Unity”, woke me up with a jolt.

But what about Hammed, a metal worker from Birmingham? Hammed identifies as a ‘Muslim’ – can he join a Left demonstration against the War in Syria? It’s a good question and the answer is not immediately obvious because it’s no secret that many of those who subscribe to ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ ideologies and especially activists, are rather troubled by religion in general and Islam in particular.

You could have fooled me. In 2003, I attended a large Palestine solidarity demonstration in London. There was a small group of Muslim extremists shouting “Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas!”. They were tolerated. Far milder expressions of white identity are violently excluded from left-wing events.

Shortly after criticising political correctness, Atzmon writes

What about Laura? She’s a Muslim convert who often hides her face behind a veil. Does she feel comfortable in ‘progressive’ or liberal gatherings? Not really.

“Feel comfortable”? This is political correctness!

The progressive left on both sides of the Atlantic is more than tolerant of Islam, the most regressive section of Western society.

The American women’s march against Donald Trump selected Muslim misogynist Linda Sarsour as one of its organisers,

and German feminists applauded Islam too.

Atzmon is right to say that a British patriot would not be welcome at an anti-war protest. But he’s completely wrong about the left and Islam.

One of the reasons Muslim men were allowed to get away with raping hundreds of underage girls for decades in Britain is that most of them live under Labour Party-controlled councils. Paralysed by political correctness, sending social workers who noticed that it was primarily “Asians” trafficking the girls, on “diversity” courses, they ignored the problem, or suppressed attempts to expose it, for fear of being called “racist”.

When Labour’s left-wing leader Jeremy Corbyn spoke in the House of Commons about the Grenfell tower disaster, he rightly pointed to Orgreave and Hillsborough as examples of police malfeasance, then he mentioned the Rotherham child-trafficking scandal as another example, again rightly. But he didn’t mention the other major factor: the overwhelming overrepresentation of Muslims among Rotherham’s child traffickers, and the influence of political correctness on allowing them to rape children. Instead, he went out of his way to make a gratuitous remark about Muslims breaking from prayers to help their neighbours in the Grenfell fire:

A more extreme example of the leftist attitude to Islam is the Socialist Workers Party arguing against Islamic terrorism – on the grounds that it wouldn’t work: Socialists Stand With The Oppressed.

Atzmon’s book is pretty good about the connection between identity politics and Zionist power in the West. He’s also right about the overrepresentation of self-identified Jews in the origins of the most sophisticated variants of movements designed to take advantage of Western self-doubt – Franz Boas’s anthropology, Theodor Adorno’s psychology and sociology (the Frankfurt school), Freud, postmodernism and the “anti-racist” anti-science of Stephen Jay Gould. But it’s not only Jewish activists who exploit this loophole. Political correctness also undermines the West’s defence against the influence of Islam.

EXAMPLES

Page 48: “Jewish ethnocentrism and even Jewish racial exclusivity is fully accepted, while other forms of ethnocentrism are bluntly rejected.”

In fact, the left tolerates prejudice from black activists, usually against white people. “African-American Studies” is positive, whereas the study of “Whiteness” is invariably negative. One can easily find dozens of examples by checking out the sites “The College Fix”“Campus Reform”Sargon of Akkad’s videos on Youtube, or reading up on the 2006 Duke University Lacrosse rape case. I suspect that’s the main reason for the left’s support for the socially conservative ideology of Islam – most of its adherents have dark skin.

Page 81: Atzmon claims that the Guardian does not mind offending ‘Islamists’, on the basis of its broadcast of one televised debate between two Zionist Jews.

He’s right about the paper’s hostility to the white workers. When hackette Zoe Williams went to Rotherham to investigate Pakistani taxi drivers raping underage white girls, she dismissed the mostly-white English Defence League as “racist”, instead asking for the opinions of… Pakistani taxi drivers. Atzmon doesn’t realise that this is normal. Muslims usually get gold in the Oppression Olympics. Here are six examples of the Guardian’s Islamophilia:

Zoe Williams: “This brutal blame game pays little heed to justice in Rotherham”

Suzanne Moore: “Poor children are seen as worthless, as Rotherham’s abuse scandal shows”

Jonathan Freedland: “Rotherham inquiry: the ‘PC gone mad’ defence is itself a form of racism”

Nazir Afzal: ‘There is no religious basis for the abuse in Rotherham’

Chi Onwurah – “The grooming of girls in Newcastle is not an issue of race – it’s about misogyny”. In a way, she’s right. It’s not about race, and it is about misogyny. Muslim misogyny. But she doesn’t say that.

The Guardian ran a story “Muslim women ‘blocked from seeking office by male Labour councillors’”. Notice that the religion of the women is mentioned, but not the men. Can you guess why?

Page 125 – ID Politics – the belief that the personal is political unless you are Muslim or white. This reiterates the idea that the left encourages identity politics for all except Muslims and white Europeans. He’s fifty percent right.

Page 129 – Atzmon argues that Islam and Christianity are similar, but Judaism is different, because it’s based on “an obedience regulatory system”, in which “God-loving is not voluntary”. And again on page 197. He argues that Christianity and Islam are universalist, as opposed to the sectarian attitudes of Judaism – “the chosen few”. He’s right about Judaism, and the myth of “Judaeo-Christian”, but he substitutes the equally false “Islamo-Christian”. The only way Islam is universalist is that anyone can join it, and many had no choice. If you haven’t signed up, or especially if you leave it, it’s not a bit universal. Its God is close to the vengeful monster of the Old Testament, not at all like his son, the pacifist who founded Christianity. “Judaeo-Islamic” is a more accurate neologism.

Page 144 – “Real Jewish power is actually the power to silence criticism of Jewish power”. Right. But what is the power to silence the defence of a scientific view of gender differences inside Google? The need to fire a black diversity officer at Apple who said it’s ok to be white? The show-trial of student Lindsay Shepherd, for showing a video clip of a debate on “gender pronouns”? The fact that Nobel Prize-winning biologists can be fired for an opinion, or a joke … and dozens of similar examples, too numerous to mention, and no doubt hundreds which have never attracted the publicity of these cases. Some of them can be found here: “The Left-Wing Campaign Against Liberal Values”. This is political correctness. Jewish power is one of its results.

CONCLUSION

Social Justice has taken over, not just academic humanities departments, but large sections of the media, and, amazingly, the most important corporations in the world, such as Apple and Google. “Cultural Marxism” is not a paranoid right-wing conspiracy theory.

It’s my contention than Zionists use the same mechanisms as SJWs to manipulate Western societies to do things which are opposed to the interests of most of their inhabitants, rich and poor. Like professors of “African-American Studies”, they use false, or meaningless, allegations of racial prejudice to take advantage of our morality. We can kill both of these birds with one stone.

Support for Israel is a result of political correctness, the expression of a weakness in white European people and societies. The immigration of millions of Muslims, among them many who don’t accept Western values, is another. Atzmon dismisses concern about Islam altogether. But read “Being and Time”. Apart from its blind spot regarding ‘Islamists’, it’s damn good.

21st Century: ID Politics Vs. The People

Patrick Henningsen with Gilad Atzmon and Jay Dyer

https://widget.spreaker.com/player?episode_id=12612322&theme=light&playlist=false&playlist-continuous=true&playlist-loop=false&playlist-autoupdate=true&autoplay=false&live-autoplay=false&chapters-image=true&cover_image_url=https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/images.spreaker.com/original/8d7725a748f63de6320a638a594518fb.jpg

cover bit small.jpg

 Being In Time: A Post Political Manifesto is available now on: Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and gilad.co.uk.   

http://21stcenturywire.com/

This week we deliver another LIVE broadcast from the UK, as SUNDAY WIRE host Patrick Henningsen is joined by two incredible guests to discuss the disturbing political situation in America. In the first hour we’ll be joined by artist and the brilliant and controversial best-selling author and internationally acclaimed jazz artist, Gilad Atzmonto discuss Charlottesville and the problem of Left vs Right identity politics in the West, as well its roots in Jewish ID politics, and how society might be able overcome the downward spiral it currently finds itself in. In the second hour we’re joined by author and analyst, Jay Dyer, from JaysAnalysis.com to talk about America’s new culture wars and why Leftist activists are now pulling down statues across the country and how this might accelerate to more censorship and ceremonial ‘book burning’ activities. In the final segment, we hear a thought-provoking interview with an American man who managed to turn from hating all Muslims to adopting a more open-minded, civil approach to dialogue – proving that communication is the key to conflict resolution.

ID Politics, Diversity and Biological Determinism?

August 20, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

geneticdeterminism.jpg

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The following is a segment taken from my new book Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto. The book offers a crude attack on ID politics.  This mini chapter examines the exclusive nature of the New Left discourse and its detachment from working people and their politics.  It points at the divisive apparatus that drives the Identitarian philosophy. By adhering to such an ideology, New Left  has managed to adopt the most problematic chapter in Hitlerian ideology namely biological determinism.  

cover bit small.jpg

United Against Unity  (Being in Time pg. 46) 

What does it take, in an era dominated by progressive identity politics, to be accepted as a fully qualified member of the ‘New Left’ or to be considered a ‘liberal?’

Jane is a well-off London lawyer who identifies politically ‘as a woman,’ and marches enthusiastically for human rights. Can she join? I think the answer is yes, she can.

George is a medical doctor who also happens to be a black man and identifies as ‘Black middle class.’ Can he subscribe to a progressive email group and contribute to the discussion? I hope and suspect that he can.

And what about Julie? She runs a real estate agency on the posh side of town but she also identifies politically as a ‘gay lesbian,’ can she join the parade? What a question! Of course she can.

Abe is an accountant and very attached to his Jewish heritage. Abe identifies as a ‘secular liberal Jew,’ can he join the anti-war movement? More than likely he can, in fact, he may even, within hours of his joining, find himself in a position of leadership.

But what about Hammed, a metal worker from Birmingham? Hammed identifies as a ‘Muslim’ – can he join  a Left demonstration against the War in Syria? It’s a good question and the answer is not immediately obvious because it’s no secret that many of those who subscribe to ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ ideologies and especially activists, are rather troubled by religion in general and Islam in particular.

So, while Hammed identifies with an inclusive, universal and humanist precept, Jane, ‘the woman’, Julie ‘the gay lesbian’ and George ‘the Black’ subscribe to political identities that are largely determined by biology. Furthermore, Abe, as a secular Jew, affiliates himself with an (imaginary) blood- based ethnocentric tribal identity. Clearly, the contemporary so called ‘New Left’ has no problem with marginal and exclusivist political identities that are often biologically oriented.

How has the contemporary ‘liberal’ discourse been sustained by people who subscribe to biologically- determined identity politics, yet often reject those who actually support equality, human rights issues and who are also often from the working class? Could it be that the ‘New Left’ is detached from working class politics and instead focuses on a vague and inconsistent pseudo-empathic discourse primarily engaged in sectarian battles?

Let’s consider some more possible cases:

Uri is an Israeli peace activist and writer who identifies as an Israeli Leftist. Is Uri welcome within the progressive network? The answer is an unreserved yes.

But how about John Smith, an English bus driver from 47

Liverpool who is proud to be English and ‘as a patriotic Englishman’ opposes the war because John truly believes that peace is patriotic. Can he join an anti-war protest and, while he’s at it, carry a Union Jack to demonstrations? Perhaps.

Tony is a ‘Jewish Socialist’ – certainly not religious but an ethnic Jew who identifies ‘as a Jew’ racially and ethnically. And by the way, Tony also operates politically within Jews- only anti-Zionist groups. Tony is hugely welcome at most progressive gatherings. But can the same be said for Franz who identifies as an ‘Aryan socialist?’ I suspect not.

The point is that there is a critical discrepancy in contemporary Left, liberal and progressive movements between professed humanism and the reality on the ground. Jewish ethnocentrism and even Jewish racial exclusivity is fully accepted, while other forms of ethnocentrism are bluntly rejected.*

And, while we’re at it, what about Laura? She’s a Muslim convert who often hides her face behind a veil. Does she feel comfortable in ‘progressive’ or liberal gatherings? Not really. But Laura certainly supports human rights and equality almost as much as she loves Allah. But the Left, supposedly progressive and liberal, shows very little tolerance towards Allah worshippers while worshippers of the Talmud who are willing to oppose Israel are not only tolerated, they are welcomed. Torah Jews, for instance, are often invited to progressive gatherings though, it must be said, they may encounter some resentment, especially from Jewish secular activists (this surely is because progressive Jews don’t like to be ethnically and ‘racially’ associated with ‘reactionary’ people in caftans).

Membership in a progressive club is not a straightforward matter. We are dealing with an operation that is far from being universal, open or inclusive. The discourse is selective, incoherent and unprincipled. The working class is not represented unless they demonstrate adherence to an Identitarian ideology and subscribe to a predetermined tablet of diverse ‘correct politics’, or shall we call it, an inconsistent set of progressive values. If they espouse a commitment to ‘working class’ values, its presence is not detectable.

So what are ‘correct politics?’ Where are they defined and by whom? Is it the same people who set a ‘progressive threshold’ that excludes the Muslim, the nationalist and the so-called ‘White’ (whatever that means), yet embraces biologically-determined sectarian politics and even racial categories?

cover bit small.jpg

 Being In Time: A Post Political Manifesto is available now on: Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and gilad.co.uk.   

 

*Black ethnocentrism had been accepted within the progressive milieu for some time, however this has changed recently once it was revealed that Black Lives Matter stood for the Palestinians. To read more: http:// http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-did-black-american- activists-start-caring-about-palestine/496088/

Being in Time – a Revolutionary Leftist review by Roy Ratcliffe

Introduction by GA: the following is an extended review of my latest book, Being in Time, by Roy Ratcliffe, one of the last free creative thinkers within the Left milieu.

Far from being surprising, Ratcliffe, a revolutionary Marxist, found a lot of truth in the book. The same can be said about conservative and Right Wing intellectuals who also praised the book. How is it possible that both Right and Left ideologists/intellectuals agree upon the validity of a critical text?  Being in Time offers an answer to the above question. In Being in Time, Traditional Left and Right thinking modes are complimentary substances. They are like day and night, the ‘dream’ and the ‘real,’ together they from a mirror image of the human psychic, that mental transition between the ‘ought to be’ and ‘Being.’

Being in Time – a post political manifesto is critical of all forms of Identity (ID) politics: Jewish, gender, White, Black etc. The book argues that the breaking of society into biologically oriented ID sectors has obliterated our ability to fight together as one people. It was set to serve the interests of big money: the Soroses, the JP Morgans, the Goldmans, the Sachses. Being in Time attempts to explain why the USA is being pushed into a civil war. It explains why Trump became the president. It predicts Corbyn’s growing popularity.  It seeks a to offer a new synthesis of our human faculties. Instead of looking into that which spreads us apart, time is ripe to look into that that which unites us all.  

Read More

عن حيل الجبناء والمهزومين

عن حيل الجبناء والمهزومين

ابراهيم الأمين

ارتداء القفازات، كما الأقنعة، حيلة الجبناء. لكن جعل الخوف من تهمة الخيانة وكأنه خوف من رصاصة طائشة، فهذا والله حيلة البلهاء. أما التذرّع بالاختلاف الدائم حول الهوية الوطنية، فهو، في حدّ ذاته، المرض المستعصي مع حاملي فيروس “الانكار”. ومعهم لن يستقيم الحال ولا النقاش!

مشكلة أهل الانكار مزدوجة: فشل ذريع في التوقعات والتقديرات، وإلقاء اللوم على المنتصرين. هؤلاء ينفون عن الآخرين معرفة الحق والصواب. جلّهم لا يرتاح على مذهب أو رأي، والتاريخ عندهم حمّال أوجه لا حقائق فيه.
في حالتنا اللبنانية والعربية، يصبح فشل النظام الرسمي العربي، ومعه نخب وأفكار وأحزاب، في حفظ السيادة والاستقلال والعجز عن تأمين التطور والازدهار، مبرراً للاعتراف بالعدو. يريد أهل الانكار لنا أن نكون مثلهم. أن نعيش تحت وطأة الهزيمة كل العمر.

أهل الانكار يشكون من أنظمة متهالكة تسببت بالفقر والتخلف والاحتلال. ثم يقولون لمن يحاول ــــ وقد نجح ــــ في مواجهة الاحتلال وتقليص حجم الظلم:

لا نريد سيادة واستقلالاً على أيديكم. ثم يصدرون الفتوى بأن المشكلة ليست في الاحتلال والاستعمار، بل في من يرفض الاستسلام.

ومع خلاصات كهذه يصبح صحيحاً قولهم بأنه لا مجال لاتفاق على وطنية أو مقدّسات، ولا حتى على بعض من قيم!

لنعد إلى بديهيات كالتي تلجأ إليها الشعوب من أجل صياغة تفاهمات الحدّ المقبول للعيش بسلام. يتم جمع الأوراق والأفكار في دستور يرسم إطار الوطنية العامة، ولا يغلق الباب على تعديلات فيه أو نسف له. وفي حالتنا نسأل:

هل ثمة تفاهمات أولية لدينا في لبنان؟
هل إسرائيل عدو لنا؟
هل تمثّل مجموعات الإرهاب خطراً علينا أم لا؟

إذا كان لدى البعض رأي آخر، فليخرج ويقل لنا، علناً، إن إسرائيل ليست عدواً. وليطالب بإلغاء حالة الحرب معها، وليقل لنا إن ارهابيي العصر لا يشكلون خطراً وإنهم أخوة لنا. ولكن، ليرفق موقفه بالدعوة إلى استفتاء، كما تفعل الدول التي يعشقها أهل الانكار، وبرعاية من يشاؤون. وإذا ربحوا بفارق واحد في المئة، سنذعن لهم، أو نترك البلد ليرتاحوا منا.

أما إذا كانت النتيجة، كما هو واقع الحال، حيث أن غالبية لبنانية حقيقية مقتنعة بأن إسرائيل هي العدو، بعدما جرّبناها جميعاً، محتلاً أو حليفاً، وبأن الإرهابيين يمثلون نقيض الحياة، وقد جربناهم انتحاريين أو ثواراً أتقياء… فماذا نفعل؟
كيف يستقيم الحال مع هؤلاء، وهم لا يرون حقيقة القوى المعادية لبلادنا. وهي القوى التي تعطينا الدرس تلو الآخر، عقداً بعد عقد، بأنها تحتقرنا، ولا تريد لنا مكانة تعلو فوق نعالها.

كيف لنا مناقشتهم وهم يقولون لنا إنه لا موجب لمقاومة الاحتلال وقتال الإرهابيين، وإن كل ما علينا فعله هو الصمت، وانتظار بركات الرجل الأبيض؟

هل يقول لنا أهل الانكار كيف نتصرف معهم وهم يرفضون مراجعة مواقفهم وتصريحاتهم ونصوصهم خلال ربع قرن، وكيف لم يصيبوا في تشخيص أو تحليل أو تقدير واحد؟

بماذا نصفهم، عندما يصبح موقفهم معادياً لمن يرفض الاحتلال والقهر والمجانين. بماذا ننعتهم وهم يرفضون كل مقاومة للعدو والإرهابيين؟

هل من صفة تطلق على هؤلاء، سواء في العالم المتخلّف أو المتقدّم، أو حتى في عوالم من ينتظر على الرصيف، غير صفة الخائن والعميل؟

أهل الانكار يريدون لنا اعتبار فشلهم، المتوالد سنة بعد سنة وإطاراً بعد إطار ومشروعاً بعد مشروع وفكرة بعد فكرة، أنه نتيجة تعنّتنا نحن، وإصرارنا نحن، على مقاومة الاحتلال وأدوات الاستعمار!

■ ■ ■

على أيّ حال، من بين قلة يمكن مناقشتهم، بعض العقائديين، حتى العظم، من فريق يرفض كل ما يمتّ إلى عالم المقاومة بصلة. بينهم حازم صاغية، المنتمي طواعية إلى نادي الخصوم. وبرغم ما يعتبره جرأة في رفض المقاومة، فهو لا يزال يخاف من قول حقيقة موقفه من إسرائيل ومن الإرهابيين وفي كيفية مواجهتهم… إذا كان يرى وجوباً لهذه المواجهة.

في مقالة له في ٢٦ تموز الماضي، كتب حازم صاغية في «الحياة» ما عناه درساً لنا بعد انتصار المقاومة في تحرير جرود عرسال من قتلة وإرهابيين. قال بجدية أو سخرية:

«إنّ من ينتصر يتعلّم الرحابة والثقة في النفس. يدعو خصومه، وقد انتصر، إلى طيّ صفحة الماضي. إلى فتح صفحة جديدة. وقد يقول، مثلاً، عبارات من نوع: «عفّى الله عمّا مضى». قد يتذكّر الأوصاف القديمة التي نسبتها كتب الإنشاء إلى العرب: العفو عند المقدرة».

حسناً، لنفعل ذلك، وقد فعلنا، لكن: كم مرة تقول للشخص نفسه عفى الله عما مضى، وكم مرة تسامحه، وكم مرة تطلب له العفو؟ ألم يتعلم من كل ما مضى، ويتوقف عن الخطأ؟ ألا يعرف أن المدرسة التي يتعلم فيها فاشلة، وأن مرجعيته خائبة، وأن خياراته تجعله في مواجهة الجدار دوماً؟ لكن حازم صاغية يكرر وصفته الدائمة بأن «انتصار طرف كهذا ــــ وليكن على «داعش» أو «النصرة» أو إسرائيل ــــ هزيمة. لن يُبتزّ أحد بالطبيعة القبيحة للطرف الآخر، لكنّ أحداً ينبغي ألّا يُبتزّ بالطبيعة المثيرة للغثيان في هذا الطرف».

هل نعود هنا مع حازم صاغية نفسه، إلى ما كتبه عشية تحرير العام 2000، يوم طالب المقاومة بإلقاء السلاح والرحيل، حتى قبل خروج قوات الاحتلال؟ وجد ما يكفي من الأسباب لحلها. لكن الجواب جاءه يومها من جهاد الزين الذي دعاه لأن يصبر ويهدأ ولا يغضب من انتصار مقاومة ليست على ذوقه الايديولوجي!

ثم يعود حازم صاغية، في ٢ آب ٢٠١٧، لينشر في «الحياة» درسه الجديد لنا بأن 

«ظاهرة العمالة والخيانة، لا تنشأ إلّا في بيئة الأنظمة الاستبداديّة والتوتاليتاريّة التي تقول بوجود قضيّة مقدّسة أو قضايا مقدّسة»،

ثم تراه لاعب جمباز يقفز فوق كل الحقائق صارخاً

«أعطنا قضيّة مقدّسة وخذ عملاء وخونة».

وحتى لا يطول بنا الانتظار يقف بيننا مثل خطيب حاسماً النقاش: 

«نحن مختلفون عميقاً في معنى الوطنيّة، في معنى مكافحة إسرائيل، في معنى محاربة الإرهاب».

ثم يزجر بنا متوهّماً تفوقاً معرفياً وأخلاقياً ليقول:

«قياساً بوطنيّين كهؤلاء، يسعدنا أن نكون خونة هذا البلد وعملاءه. إنّ الدنس خير من تلك القداسة».

في كل ما سبق، يبقى حازم صاغية أميناً لفكرة سكنته منذ اكتشف عجز المقاومة الفلسطينية عن تحرير فلسطين، وعجز الحركة الوطنية اللبنانية عن إنتاج حل لأزمة لبنان. وهذا حقه. لكن المشكلة التي تحزّ في القلب، أن يصل به فقر المنطق وصدأ أدوات التحليل، إلى أن يعتبر مهاجمة الخونة والعملاء تورية تخفي «طائفيّة مقنّعة بحيث تُستخدم تهمة العمالة لتجنّب ذكر جماعات طائفيّة أخرى هي المقصودة فعلاً بالشتيمة».

في هذه النقطة، من المفيد لفت انتباهه إلى أن آخر ما يتمناه المرء لشخص مثل حازم صاغية، أن يكون مواظباً علىسماع أناشيد فؤاد السنيورة حول الطائفية والمذهبية. لأن حقيقة ما نعيشه يقول، بوضوح، بأن اتهام الآخرين بالعنصرية والطائفية هو، في الحقيقة، حيلة المهزومين!

بالأمس، كتب حازم صاغية مقالة بعنوان «زمن حزب الله» متحدّثاً عما شهده لبنان في الأسابيع الماضية، وبدا فيها متفاجئاً وعاتباً كيف

«نعيش اليوم الحقيقة الخطيرة التي هي اندماج البندقيّة بالتأييد الشعبيّ العابر للطوائف». ثم في لحظة تخلٍّ يرى أن هناك أسباباً لانتصارات حزب الله بينها «سبب اسمه حسن نصر الله: الوجه السياسيّ الوحيد غير التافه في صحراء السياسة اللبنانيّة. ذاك الرجل بنى موقعه بالعمل والجدّ والسهر، والعيش تحت الأرض… في خطاباته سلّح، ويسلّح، جمهوره بالحجج التي تغذّي سجالهم السياسيّ…

يخطب نصر الله فيُشتقّ موقف سياسيّ من خطابه». ربما يجد البعض في ما يقوله حازم صاغية «إقراراً بالهزيمة». ربما في ذلك بعض الحقيقة. لكن الأكيد، أنه إقرار يشبه إلى حد المطابقة إقرار ابو مالك التلي بهزيمته في جرود عرسال. إنه أشبه باستسلام من خسر المعركة ولم يبدّل قناعاته.

حازم صاغية، هنا، لا يخبرنا بجديد عندما «يمدح» عدوه الأول، و«يبهدل» من اعتبرهم هو، يوماً، الأمل في بناء دولة لا وجود للمقاومين والممانعين فيها. لكن الصدمة التي لن يتأخر حدثها وستفقده صوابه، تتعلق بأن الغرب، الذي يعشقه صاغية، يركض بكل أنفاسه، بالإغراء كما بالتهديد، صوب حزب الله وما يمثله، يريد منه تواصلاً، أو علاقة وتعاوناً، وربما تحالفاً إن لزم الأمر. وهي صدمة سبق لحازم أن جرّبها قبل عقود!

في ذلك الزمن، كتب الراحل جوزيف سماحة عن صديقيه وليد نويهض وحازم صاغية، محللاً علاقة خاصة بينهما، وسجالاً حيال النظرة إلى إيران والغرب في ثمانينات القرن الماضي مع انكشاف فضيحة «ايران غيت»، إذ تبين أن الأميركيين يبيعون السلاح لإيران. قال جوزيف يومها إن «حازم ذهب في «الحداثة» محمولاً على المد الريغاني باعث أمجاد الغرب وأميركا ووائد كارتر، «الديمقراطي المائع» الذي لم يعرف أن يلقن خاطفي الأميركيين في بيروت الدرس الذي يستحقون. لكنه عاش مفاجأة «أميركية». أحسّ أن ريغان غدر به. جعله يعتقد أن أميركا العائدة بقوة إلى قيادة العالم هي خارج إطار التعاطي السياسي مع إيران».

قال جوزيف

إن حازم «يهاجر من جواب إلى جواب». هي الهجرة التي تحولت مهنة. لكنها بلغت حدوداً تتجاوز الحدود المعقولة لسن التقاعد، وهو ما قد يكون العلاج الأنجع… أو لنقل إنه حيلة المفلسين!

■ ■ ■

اليوم، 14 آب، الذكرى السنوية لتحطيم المقاومة أسطورة جيش إسرائيل. ويصادف، أيضاً، يوم صدور العدد الأول من «الأخبار». نعود إلى ذلك الصباح الذي كتب فيه جوزيف سماحة إننا في «زمن يتميّز بوفرة «الحسابات الخاطئة». إنّ لبنان في مرحلة مفصلية، وكذلك منطقتنا. ويمكن قول الأمر نفسه عن العدوان المتمادي الذي نتعرض له. لقد دخلنا هذه المرحلة المفصلية لأن هناك من أجرى «حسابات خاطئة». لقد كدنا نعتاد أن هذه التهمة توجّه إلى من يقاوم ظلماً، أو يتمرّد عليه، أو يرفضه بعنف. إلا أن الفترة الأخيرة توفّر أدلة لا تحصى على أن التهمة انتقلت من جهة إلى أخرى. لم يعد سرّاً اليوم، من هو الطرف الذي خالف الدقة».

قال جوزيف قبل 11 عاماً ما يطابق حالنا اليوم، حيث

ان لبنان «الخارج من صلابة الممانعة وركام الخرائب لن يكون لبنان الذي عرفناه قبل. فلبنان قبل 12 تموز 2006 كان وطناً معلّقاً ومزرعة سمّيت، تجاوزاً، دولة. يجب الحؤول دون ترميم المزرعة من أجل التقدم نحو بناء دولة المواطنين التي يمكنها، وحدها، بعدلها وقدرتها وحرصها السيادي، أن تستوعب هذا الاستعداد المذهل للانتصار على الصعاب، وأن تنظر إلى المقاومة، أيّ مقاومة، بصفتها عصباً يشدّ النسيج الوطني، ويقوّي صلابته، ويدافع عن عروبته، ويمنع انزلاقه نحو الخراب الكبير الرافع وهم «الحياد» والداعي إلى حرمان الأمة من المساهمة اللبنانية الفذّة. دلالات المواجهة المستمرة كثيرة».

اليوم، نقترب أكثر، من أي وقت مضى، من فرصة إعادة صياغة المنظومة السياسية والاقتصادية التي ستحكم هذا الشرق لعقود طويلة. وهي حقبة قاسية وموجعة بعوارض نموها، وربما بأصعب من آلام المواجهة مع المستعمر وشياطينه.

بيننا مقاوم يرتفع دوماً فوق القامات.

وبيننا خونة وعملاء لن تغسل الدماء عارهم.

وبيننا مهزومون يحتاجون الى علاج على يد مبدع يمنع عن مرضاه الارتماء في حضن شياطين العصر، حيث لا شيء سوى الجنون والانتحار!

مقالات أخرى لابراهيم الأمين:

Who is afraid of Gilad Atzmon?

June 12, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Adam Garrie is one of the most sophisticated scholarly minds around. We discussed censorship, identity politics, social cohesion, Left tyranny,  the crisis of the post-modern west. We tried to figure out what being in time  is all about. If you want to see me challenged, here is your opportunity…

https://youtu.be/mmL-f020mlY

%d bloggers like this: