Mideast news divergence August 14 2009

Stories on the Mideast widely diverge today. The I$raeli papers report that there is an armed group with hundreds of men for a pan-Islamic emirate in Gaza following Al Qaeda while Hamas is for two states. Meanwhile, the I$raeli press also reports that Hamas is waiting for an Obama peace plan.

When we go to check another website the same day, http://www.presstv.ir, it says that there is no Al Qaeda group in Gaza and that Hamas says an Amerikan peace plan would only bring “death and destruction.”

As I wrote these two paragraphs, “Haaretz” added in that Al Qaeda and Hamas had a shoot-out with five dead.

There is a strategy possible here, that Hamas may be allowed to moderate and to be seen as accepting a peace plan while some radicals go to Al Qaeda. Another possibility is that I$rael and the Amerikkkans just seek to stir up divisions. Yet another possibility is that both sets of stories are true as a way of preparing public opinion through have-it-both-ways.

Amerikkkan pseudo-leftists are deeply steeped in sectarianism and secular humynism, not Mao’s teachings on the principal contradiction. For this reason, they look to support organizations in the other countries that claim to adopt the same exact principles, even if those organizations support U.$. war efforts against the Third World.

Today, Iran news in Amerika says there is a call on the “Assembly of Experts” to check Khameini’s qualifications to be the religious leader of Shia Islam. Meanwhile, on presstv.ir, we read that a member of the Assembly of Experts condemned the United $tates for supporting unrest.

Liberals support pluralism no matter what. Liberal sectarians support their organization’s cheerleaders no matter what. In Iran’s case, Mirhossein Mousavi(1) supported freedom for Marxists to speak in Iran, but it’s not simple for MIM to say that while U.$. public opinion is more hostile to Iran than any other Mideast country that we support pluralism and therefore Mousavi. Even if a country is not united with Maoist leadership, it is sometimes better that it stay united.

That’s also a consideration with Palestinians. The I$raelis are always looking for pluralism in their neighbors, because they need division to survive in the sea of Arab countries.

This pluralism extends to MIM. I$rael is probably discussing MIM’s ideas more than any other country, proportionately-speaking. Carlo Strenger discusses today “Why Israel’s left has disappeared” in “Haaretz.” He notices that the Chomsky/Said era of hopes in a united class struggle of Israelis and Arabs has passed. That has many implications for why certain strategies do not work and instead, if anything, the outrage of Palestinians is greater than that of Americans facing the British in 1776: the class gap is greater. The gap comes guised in religious polarization, but it is really class polarization. New York City works as a super-profit-redistribution-center of various ethnicities, but I$rael/Palestine does not, because there is no super-profit-redistribution to Palestinians. The soggy social-democratic and Martin Luther King integration strategies work where there is common class interest. I$raelis are now way too bourgeois for the original idea of many socialist Zionists to work anymore.




%d bloggers like this: