NADINE ROSA-ROSSO ON THE WESTERN LEFT AND HAMAS

The Left and Support for Anti-Imperialist Islamist Resistance

Speech delivered by Nadine Rosa-Rosso* at the The Beirut International Forum for Resistance, Anti-Imperialism, Solidarity between Peoples and Alternatives, held from January 16 to 18, 2009.

The key question in this forum is how to support resistance
against imperialism across the world. As an independent
Belgian communist activist I would like to focus on the
position of the European Left vis-à-vis this issue.

The massive demonstrations in European capitals and major
cities in support of the people of Gaza highlighted once
again the core problem: the vast majority of the Left,
including communists, agrees in supporting the people of
Gaza against Israeli aggression, but refuses to support its
political expressions such as Hamas in Palestine and
Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Left not only refuses to support them, but also
denounces them and fights against them. Support for the
people of Gaza exists only at a humanitarian level but not
at the political level.

Concerning Hamas and Hezbollah; the Left is mainly
concerned with the support these groups have amongst the
Arab masses, but are hardly interested in the fact that
Israel’s clear and aggressive intention is to destroy these
resistance movements. From a political point of view we can
say without exaggeration that the Left's wish (more or less
openly admitted) follows the same line as the Israeli
government's: to liquidate popular support for Hamas and
Hezbollah.

This question arises not only for the Middle East but also
in the European capitals because, today, the bulk of the
demonstrators in Brussels, London and Paris are made up of
people of North African origin, as well as South Asian
Muslims in the case of London.

The reactions of the Left to these events are quite
symptomatic. I will cite a few but there are dozens of
examples. The headline of the French website ‘Res Publica’
following the mass demonstration in Paris on the 3rd of
January read: "We refuse to be trapped by the Islamists of
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah!” The article continued:
"Some activists of the left and far left (who only turned
out in small numbers) were literally drowned in a crowd
whose views are at odds with the spirit of the French
Republican movement and of the 21st Century Left. Over 90%
of the demonstrators championed a fundamentalist and
communitarian worldview based on the clash of civilizations
which is anti-secular and anti-Republican. They advocated a
cultural relativism whose harmful tendencies are well
known, particularly in England.

Res Publica is neither Marxist or communist, but one would
be hard pressed to find even the most remotely positive
words about Hamas on Marxist websites. One does find
formulations such as “Whatever we think about Hamas, one
thing is indisputable: the Palestinian people
democratically elected Hamas to lead Gaza in elections held
under international supervision.” Looking further at “what
we can think of Hamas” one finds on the websites of both
the French Communist Party and the Belgian Labour Party an
article entitled “How Israel put Hamas in the saddle.” We
learn little more than the assertion that Hamas has been
supported by Israel, the United States and the European
Union. I note that this article was put online on January
2nd after a week of intensive Israeli bombardment and the
day before the ground offensive whose declared aim was the
destruction of Hamas.

I will return to the quotation of Res Publica, because it
summarizes quite well the general attitude of the Left not
only in relation to the Palestinian resistance, but also in
regard to the Arab and Muslim presence in Europe. The most
interesting thing in this article is the comment in
parentheses: ‘the Left and far Left (who only turned out in
small numbers)’. One might expect following such a
confession some self-critical analysis regarding the lack
of mobilisation in the midst of the slaughter of the
Palestinian people. But no, all charges directed against
the demonstrators (90% of the whole protests) are accused
of conducting a "war of civilizations."

At all the demonstrations I participated in Brussels, I
asked some demonstrators to translate the slogans that were
chanted in Arabic, and they did so with pleasure every
time. I heard a lot of support for the Palestinian
resistance and denunciation of Arab governments (in
particular the Egyptian President Mubarak), Israel's
crimes, and the deafening silence of the international
community or the complicity of the European Union. In my
opinion, these were all political slogans quite appropriate
to the situation. But surely some people only hear
Allah-u-akbar and form their opinion on this basis. The
very fact that slogans are shouted in Arabic is sometimes
enough to irritate the Left. For example, the organizing
committee of the meeting of 11 January was concerned about
which languages would be used. But could we not have simply
distributed the translations of these slogans? This might
be the first step towards mutual understanding. When we
demonstrated in 1973 against the pro-American military
takeover by Pinochet in Chile, no one would have dared to
tell the Latin American demonstrators "Please, chant in
French!” In order to lead this fight, we all learnt slogans
in Spanish and no one was offended.

The problem is really in the parentheses: why do the Left
and far Left mobilise such small numbers? And to be clear,
are the Left and far Left still able to mobilize on these
issues? The problem was already obvious when Israel invaded
Lebanon in the summer of 2006. I would like to quote here
an anti-Zionist Israeli who took refuge in London, jazz
musician Gilad Atzmon, who already said, six months before
the invasion: "For quite a long time, it has been very
clear that the ideology of the Left is desperately
struggling to find its way in the midst of the emerging
battle between the West and the Middle East. The parameters
of the so-called "clash of civilizations" are so clearly
established that any “rational” and “atheist” leftist
activist is clearly condemned to stand closer to Donald
Rumsfeld than to a Muslim.”

One would find it difficult to state the problem more
clearly.

I would like to briefly address two issues which literally
paralyze the Left in its support to the Palestinian,
Lebanese, and more generally to the Arab and Muslim
resistance: religion and terrorism.

The Left and Religion

Perplexed by the religious feelings of people with an immigrant background, the Left, Marxist or not, continuously quotes the famous statement of Marx on religion: “religion is the opium of the people”. With this they think everything that needs to be said has been said. It might be more useful cite the fuller quote of Marx and perhaps give it more context. I do this not to hide behind an authority, but in the hope of provoking some thought amongst those who hold this over-simplified view,

“Religion is the general theory of this world, (…), its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. (…) The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

(Translation of Prof. W. Banning, Life, Learning and Meaning, 1960, The Spectrum (p.62-63)

I have always been and remain an atheist, but the rise of religious feelings is hardly surprising. In today’s world most politicians, including those on the Left, do little more then display their weakness on this issue: they do nothing against the military power of the US, they do nothing or almost nothing against financial speculation and the logic of profit that plunges billions of people on this Earth into poverty, hunger and death. All this is due we are told to “the invisible hand” or “divine intervention”: where is the difference between this and religion? The only difference is that the theory of the “invisible hand” denies people the right to struggle for social and economical justice against this “divine intervention” that helps to maintain the status quo. Like it or not, we cannot look down on billions of people who may harbour religious feelings while wanting to ally with them.

The Left does exactly the same thing as what it accuses the Islamists of: it analyses the situation only in religious terms. It refuses to disclose the religious expressions as a “protest against misery”, as a protest against Imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism. It cuts itself off from a huge part of the masses. Gilad Atzmon expresses it best when he states: “Rather than imposing our beliefs upon others, we better learn to understand what others believe in”. If we continue to refuse to learn, we will continue to lament the religious feelings of the masses instead of struggling with them for peace, independence and social and economic justice.

But there is more. The fate of Islam is very different from that of Christianity. I have never known the Left to hesitate when showing solidarity with the Latin American bishops, followers of liberation theology and the struggle against Yankee Imperialism in the 70s, or the Irish Catholic resistance to British Imperialism. Nor have I known the left to criticize Martin Luther King for his references to the Gospel, which was a powerful lever for the mobilisation of the Black American masses that did not have political, economic or social rights in the U.S in the sixties. This discriminatory treatment by the Left, this systematic mistrust of Muslims who are all without any distinction suspected of wanting to impose sharia law on us, can only be explained by colonialism that has profoundly marked our consciousness. We will not forget that the Communists, such as the Communist Party of Belgium (KPB), praised the benefits of colonization that were enthusiastically spread by Christian missionaries. For example, in the 1948 program of the KPB, when the party had just emerged from a period of heroic resistance against the Nazi occupation, it stated the following about the Belgian Congo: “a) Establishment of a single economic unit Belgium-Congo; b) Development of trade with the colony and realization of its national resources; c) Nationalization of resources and trusts in Congo; d) Development of a white colonists class and black farmers and artisan class; e) Gradual granting of democratic rights and freedoms to the black population.”

It was this kind of political education of workers by the Party which meant that there was hardly any protests from these Belgian workers influenced by the KPB when Patrice Lumumba, Pierre Mulele and many other African anti-imperialist leaders were assassinated. After all "our" Christian civilization is civilized, is it not? And democratic rights and freedoms can only "gradually" be assigned to the masses in the Third World, since they are too barbaric to make good use of them.

On the basis of exactly the same political colonialist reasoning, the Left is rather regretful in having supported democratic elections in Palestine. Perhaps they should have adopted a more gradualist approach towards the Palestinians since the majority of Palestinians have now voted for Hamas. Worse, the Left bemoans the fact that "the PLO was forced to organize parliamentary elections in 2006 at a time when everything showed that Hamas would win the elections". This information is available on the sites of the French KP and Belgian PVDA.

If we would agree to stop staring blindly and with prejudice at the religious beliefs of people, we would perhaps "learn to understand" why the Arab and Muslim masses, who today demonstrate for Palestine, are screaming ‘Down with Mubarak’, an Arab and Muslim leader, and why they jubilantly shout the name of Chavez, a Christian-Latin American leader. Doesn’t this make it obvious that the Arab and Muslim masses frame their references not primarily through religion but by the relation of leaders to US and Zionist Imperialism?

And if the Left would formulate the issue in these terms, would they not partly regain the support of the people that formerly gave the Left its strength?

Another cause of paralysis of the Left in the anti-imperialist struggle is the fear of being associated with terrorism.

On the 11^th of January 2009, the president of the German Chamber of Representatives, Walter Momper, the head of the parliamentarian group of ‘Die Grüne’ (the German Greens), Franziska Eichstädt-Bohlig, a leader of ‘Die Linke’, Klaus Lederer, and others held a demonstration in Berlin with 3000 participants to support Israel under the slogan ‘stop the terror of Hamas’. One must keep in mind that Die Linke are considered by many in Europe as the new and credible alternative Left, and an example to follow.

The entire history of colonisation and decolonisation is the history of land that has been stolen by military force and has been reclaimed by force. From Algeria to Vietnam, from Cuba to South-Africa, from Congo to Palestine: no colonial power ever renounced to its domination by means of negotiation or political dialogue alone.

For Gilad Atzmon it is this context that constitutes the real significance of the barrage of rockets by Hamas and the other Palestinian resistance organizations: “This week we all learned more about the ballistic capability of Hamas. Evidently, Hamas was rather restrained with Israel for a long while. It refrained from escalating the conflict to the whole of southern Israel. It occurred to me that the barrages of Qassams that have been landing sporadically on Sderot and Ashkelon were actually nothing but a message from the imprisoned Palestinians. First it was a message regarding stolen land, homes, fields and orchards: ‘Our beloved soil, we didn’t forget, we are still here fighting for you, sooner rather than later, we will come back, we will start again where we had stopped’. But it was also a clear message to the Israelis. ‘You out there, in Sderot, Beer Sheva, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Tel Aviv and Haifa, whether you realise it or not, you are actually living on our stolen land. You better start to pack because your time is running out, you have exhausted our patience. We, the Palestinian people, have nothing to lose anymore”. (Gilad Atzmon - Living on Borrowed Time in a Stolen Land)

What can be understood by an Israeli Jew, the European Left fails to understood, rather they find ’indefensible’ the necessity to take by force what has been stolen by force.

Since 9/11, the use of force in the anti-colonial and the anti-imperialist struggle has been classified under the category of ‘terrorism’; one cannot even discuss it any more. It is worth remembering that Hamas had been proscribed on the list of ‘foreign terrorist organizations’ by the United States in 1995, seven years before 9/11! In January 1995, the United States elaborated the ‘Specially designated terrorist List (STD)’ and put Hamas and all the other radical Palestinian liberation organisations on this list.

The capitulation on this question by a great part of the Western Left started after 9/11, after the launching of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) by the Bush administration. The fear of being classified ‘terrorists’ or apologists of terrorism has spread. This attitude of the Left is not only a political or ideological question, it is also inspired by the practical consequences linked to the GWOT. The European ‘Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism’ and its attached terror list who was a copy-and-paste version of the American terror list that has been incorporated into European legislation, which allow the courts to prosecute those who are suspected of supporting terrorism. During an anti-war rally in London, some activists sold a publication which included Marxist analysis on Hamas were stopped by the police and their magazines were confiscated. In other words, to attempt to inform people on the political program and the action of Hamas and Hezbollah becomes an illegal enterprise. The political atmosphere intimidates people into distancing themselves from these resistance movements and to denounce them without reservations.

In conclusion I have a concrete suggestion to make: we must launch an appeal to remove Hamas from the terror lists. At the same time we must ensure that Hezbollah are not added to the terror list. It is the least we can do if we want to support the Palestinian, Lebanese and Arab resistance. It is the minimal democratic condition for supporting the resistance and it is the essential political condition for the Left to have a chance to be heard by the anti-imperialist masses.

I am fully aware of the fact that my political opinions are a minority in the Left, in particular amongst the European communists. This worries me profoundly, not because of my own fate, I am not more then a militant amongst others, but for the fate of the communist ideal of an end of exploitation of man by man, a struggle which can only happen through the abolition of the imperialist, colonial and neo-colonial system.

*Nadine Rosa-Rosso is a Brussels-based independent Marxist. She has edited two books: "Rassembler les résistances" of the French-language journal 'Contradictions' and "Du bon usage de la laïcité", that argues for an open and democratic form of secularism. She can be contacted at nadinerr@gmail.com