Two weeks ago, AWL nutcase Sean Matgamna informed us that we shouldn’t condemn a pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The more wise amongst us, realised that since these facilities are buried deep underground, there would be only one way to close them down… A nuclear attack. But apparently we can’t condemn the imperialist slaughter of tens of thousands of Iranians, no Sir, because that would be a little too ‘kitsch’.This week, the AWL elite has decided to go on the war path. Not content with attempting to spread their own poison into the British workers’ movement, they have decided to tell a few more lies about Hands Off the People of Iran (Hopi), releasing a leaflet entitled ‘The left must say no to the Mullah’s bomb’. You can check it out here. Aside from a mysterious reference to Iranian “elf-determination” - has the AWL mistaken the Middle East for Middle Earth? - the text is light on intelligent analysis and anything remotely factual, and heavy on rhetoric, sniping and, of course, bullshit.
‘H-Bombs are not weapons of “defence”. They are weapons of mass murder’ writes the AWL. Yes, I’m sure we all agree on that… In fact, I suspect this is precisely why Hopi voted to include ‘for a nuclear-free Middle East as a step towards world-wide nuclear disarmament’ as one of its campaign statements. The AWL know this: bizarrely enough they even go on to quote us on it, after spending 1000 words pretending we would be in favour of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian theocracy. There is, however, only one nuclear power in the Middle East and that is Israel. Not Iran… Israel. This means there is only one country in the region with the capacity to use a nuclear weapon to annihilate the working class of another country and that is, obviously, Israel. Not Iran… Israel.The AWL leadership needs to get this simple fact into their heads.
There is a great deal of consensus on the subject of whether Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons. It isn’t. The American imperialists say it isn’t. Israeli academics say it isn’t. The British Left, with the exception of the AWL, says it isn’t. Therefore, Iran does not pose a serious threat to Israel. Israel, on the other hand, poses a pretty fucking huge threat to Iran. It truly is that straight forward. Now the AWL has a choice: it can continue to talk in increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals to the very end, or it can start to engage in reality. Which is it to be?
Hopi does not believe Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. If the AWL can find a scrap of evidence saying we do, I suggest they bring it forward. Until then, issuing curious leaflets based on false logic and Matgamna's wet dreams, is not going to convince anyone even marginally sane.
Hopi is not a front organisation. Look at our steering committee. I’m on there and I’m used to looking round the table and seeing a CPGB minority. There are members from the LRC, the Jewish Socialists Group, Permanent Revolution, the Women’s Campaign Against All Misogynist Laws in Iran, the Green Party, Rahe Kargar and the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq. We have Moshé Machover, an Israeli socialist who has outlined Hopi’s principled position on the subject of Iran and nuclear weapons time and time again. We even have an anarchist on our steering committee.
We have not all been duped by the CPGB!
Besides, if we’re going to talk in terms of front groups, what on earth is Middle East Workers’ Solidarity supposed to be? How is that not an AWL front group? Hopi has plenty of popular support; I would like to see the AWL try and get the 300,000-strong PCS (Britain’s fifth largest trade union) affiliated to MEWS, as it did to Hopi. It’s never going to happen.
For a far superior in-depth rebuttal of the AWL’s latest lies, read what Tami Peterson (LRC and Hopi steering member) has to say here .
Posts
35 comments:
I laughed so much i nearly broke my computer with projectile orange juice =D
If only they were for eld determination i might actually like them a little bit more...
Thanks, Ste.
I think "elf-determination" must be the inevitable consequence of spending all of ten minutes making this leaflet... Or the Zionists truly are losing the plot (more so than usual)
The AWL’s leaflet is an hysterical attempt to do what they always try to do – divert attention from the key issues by making slanderous and groundless accusations. Hence the venomous slurs about anti-semitism that have littered the blogs this weekend.
The article in WW was spot on in one key respect – that the AWL’s notorious third campism is rapidly sliding into outright support for imperialism. Where else can it go when your world view is that the working class is too weak and imperialists democracies are far nicer than the nasty regimes that imperialist policies engender?
The leaflet also exposed their downright Islamophobia. In the (bizarre) analogy with Hitler’s Germany and the inability of the German bourgeoisie to control the Nazi regime, the leaflet states:
“Yet the German bourgeoisie were a far greater force in Germany than are the Iranian bourgeoisie in Iran; and it is highly unlikely that the Nazi ideology had roots as deep and strong in Germany as fanatical Islam in Iran”
In one islamophobic swoop, the progressive forces in Iran are dismissed and Iranian civil society is tarnished with the crimes of its regime. Leaving aside the whole question of the Iranian bourgeoisie which is of course weaker than the bourgeoisie of an imperialist power and therefore under pressure to make concessions to imperialism despite its anti-imperialist rhetoric – something that is reflected in the contradictions of the regime.
So here they stand, exposed for their islamophobia, joining in with the imperialists in demonizing the Iranian people for their “fanaticism”, whilst hypocritically denouncing anti-imperialists as anti-semitic for refusing to recognise the legitimacy of a state built on the expulsion of a whole people from their land.
On the question of nuclear weapons. Socialists are not for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, however we recognise that this is a feature of the imperialist system. Only the international class struggle can put an end to the madness of weapons of mass destruction - carried out concretely in Iran by linking the fight against imperialism to a fight against the Iranian bourgeosie and for working class internationalism. By focusing on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and campaigning against it, the AWL is de facto supporting the right of imperialism to dictate the global military balance of power.
The leaflet states at the end that HOPI’s reference to Israeli nuclear weapons is a way of “deflecting the burning, immediate question of the acquirement of nuclear weapons by the Iranian regime onto a general project for a nuclear free Middle East”. As if Israel being stockpiled with nuclear weapons paid for by the imperialist super power were not a burning and immediate question in the Middle East! It seems not for the AWL, since for them a world order imposed by a heavily militarized imperialism is preferable to their fantasy of Iran gaining nuclear weapons, and, even more fantastical, using them.
PS you might want to delete the link to Shiraz Socialist. Just a thought...
Your comment is far too good to have wasted on my blog, Tina!
I will remove Shiraz Socialist, since Tami will no longer be posting on there
Vicky, your blog is a welcome addition to the geeky male dominated blogs that inhabit the left blogosphere - don't knock it.
Also, the comments section on the PR blog is momentarily disabled ;-)
Glad to see you removed Shiraz Socialist from your blog roll. The AWL are now beyond the pale...
I actually think you are missing the big issue here, Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. What should Israel do? If someone threatened to punch you, you would do something about it.
And your reason for removing the link is... that Jim wrote a post with which you disagree and was mean to you? Hardly the stuff of tolerant pluralism now, is it?
Anonymous, the big issue in the middle east is imperialism and its gendarme, its ongoing oppression of the palestinian people and aggressive pursuit of its interests in the region.
VP, my tolerance towards Shiraz Socialist waned with the consistent and shameful use of the term anti-semitism. It is an outrage that people who fight against all forms of racism are accused of being anti-semitic because the legitimacy of a state built on the expulsion of another people.
Excellent post. Thanks for the clarity and passion, and for cutting through the BS.
I shall link.
Anonymous- the big issue is this. Iran doesn't have nuclear weaponry. Israel does! Tehran is not going to attack the only nuclear power in the Middle East; to do so would be fatal stupidity.
VP- I had your blog linked because of great respect and admiration for Tami, an intelligent comrade of great integrity. Tami has left. Why should I maintain the link? I have not been around the blogging world for long, but it's fairly clear that any blog with Jim Denham, someone who tosses around anti-Semite and Nazi insults like he's dealing with fascists not comrades, is not something to be endorsed. Hurling around vile and so, so, so deeply offensive and entirely unqualified insults towards anyone who happens to wish to side with the Iranian and Israeli working classes rather than the imperialist and racist leaders of Israel, is not acceptable.
Mistakenly taking Zionist and Jewish to mean the exact same is anti-Semitism. Condemning Israeli ruling class aggression and imperialism is not.
Thank you, madam miaow!
Vicky: As you may or may not be aware (Tami certainly is, and I'm slightly angry that she implies otherwise in her most recent post on Shiraz), Shiraz Socialist does not have a political "line" on anything. We've taken posts from people with all manner of political views, including from people who radically disagree with the AWL on, well, everything. That's ultimately my editorial decision and I'm proud to keep things that way, because that is what makes us unique.
In terms of insults, I think that it takes some kind of political myopia for anyone to state that the insults going round the blogosphere have been all one way over the past couple of weeks. For instance, I very much doubt that most of the AWL enjoy being called "zionist stooges", "CIA" or whatever else. I certainly don't enjoy being called their "hanger on", and incidentally in your own case I very much doubt that Sean Matgamna enjoys being called a "nutcase".
In terms of my own standpoint I agree with Broder et al, the "minority" in the AWL on this issue. I think Matgamna's article was dreadful - but I don't therefore support a witch-hunt led by a group of weirdos rooted in Stalinism. And no I'm not talking about PR there.
You'll notice I haven't deleted Tami's post, and I have no intention of doing so. Not bad for a Matgamnite stooge, hey? ;-)
But hey, never let the facts get in the way of "the line" eh?
I haven't called you a "Matgamnite stooge"! I don't know anything about your political culture, and to the best of my knowledge you haven't been one of the posters taking place in this blogging war. It's good to know you agree with Broder's reply; I thought it was very well argued.
All I did say, was that Denham's tossing aroung of anti-Semite etc. is unforgivable. There hasn't been an equivalent from those attacking Matgamna... My use of "nutcase", a colloquialism used in regular speech and backed up countless times by me, hardly cuts it.
Denham is one of the main contributors on your blog. Therefore, I'm not going to link. It would be a pretty bizarre state of affairs if, Tami herself having left, I continued to link the blog shared by a man who called my partner "pro-Nazi" for no reason...
Obviously it's your call who you link to. All I wanted to make clear was that the blanket implication that we're an "AWL blog" (and I know that doesn't come from you) is simply not true. If you won't link to us because Jim said something nasty about your partner (sorry, haven't read back and worked out who that is) then no worries, I understand that. But what I won't have is untrue assumptions being made about the blog that I started, and de facto about my own politics. Thus I'm sure you can understand why I felt obliged to comment.
Or indeed "are" untrue assumptions. Shite, what bad grammar. ;-)
Have to say that the leaders of the AWL were undemocratic liars 25 years ago so why exactly is this suddenly news to so many of you now?
And why on earth are reasonable people on the left wasting their time attempting to engage with them, instead of ignoring them as you would the sparts, icp and other healyite fruitballs?
David Broder has been expelled by the right wing leadership.
Is that true, if so its only the latest incident in a pattern going back to the mid 70's, the leadership of the AWL and its forerunners have always dealt with serious political discussion by using organisation measures.
I have also heard that Broder has been expelled. Obviously either he or the leadership will need to confirm this
I'll leave him to speak for himself but no, that isn't what's happened.
Tantalising!
Being asked to sign a loyalty pledge is, in effect, being forced out.
So presumably the ultra democratic AWL only asks people with a minority point of view to sign such pledges, could it be perhaps that this is the first time for many years that a minority has gained a signifant percentage of the votes at an AWL conference?
And could it be perhaps the AWL leadership has started to fall back on tried and tested methods to deal with this occurance?
Still begs the question of why the principled left bother with these people?
I consider this post to be an ourageous lying misrepresentation, and I'd be quite happy to tell the world why, in a public debate, I once called the organisers of HOPI "scabs" over their failure to give unconditional support to Osanloo and other Iranian trades unionists. I withdrew that charge because someone I personally liked was upset about it. I was, politically, uneasy about that withdrawel at the time. I now repaet the charge: you're SCABS.
No, Jim, you're a shameless vulgar excuse for a socialist, who doesn't know the meaning of the word "comrade". You throw around insults you probably don't understand, without having the intelligence and common courtesy to look at the facts and see that you're wrong. The AWL has never come up with a single lie about Hopi that has not been easily refuted by us, time and time again. Why do you resort to lying and insulting? Because you haven't a bloody clue what it means to stand in international solidarity with the people of the Middle East. Because you'd sooner side with the Israeli ruling class, than the working class of Iran and the rest of the Middle East. Do you actually know what "scabs" means, you racist hypocrite?
We do support Ossanloo unconditionally, which is more than you do by excusing an attack on his country.
So how is it, "infantile2 that HOPI put out a staement (which I'll find and post if you reakky want), saying that they DID NOT support the IFTU's day of action???
Please explain that.
And then call me a "liar" again.
Jim, how many times do people need to explain to you that unconditional support for Osanloo does not mean unconditional support for the ITF/ITUC? Does it keep slipping your mind?
HOPI's statement was spot on. Anyone who wants to see read it can go here: http://www.hopoi.org/resources/March%206.pdf
HOPI could not support the ITF/ITUC day of action because those organisations are heavily compromised in their refusal to undertake a position against an imperialist attack on Iran (kinda like the AWL!). Unlike the AWL we do not uncritically tail the ITF/ITUC because there position is missing an open commitment against a war on Iran.
I also wish to pre-empt any assertion that unions don't take political positions like one of your comrades tried to argue. If the PCS and Aslef can be won to an anti war/ pro solidarity position by HOPI and that STWC can win several unions to an anti war positions then obviously unions can and should take political positions.
And Jim, if anyone is a scab it is you lot in the AWL who are backing the imperialists in Iraq and maybe soon Iran.
The AWL are zionist scum that should be wiped off the face of the planet.
Doesnt Jim Denhams posts here say everything necessary about the AWL, although in all honesty most sober members of that organisation probably find him embarrasing.
However if someone/an organisation is a scab they are a scab its curious that Jim Denham withdraws the charge to avoid offending someone else, either he knows the accusation was falseless in the first place and couldnt justify to other people, or he throws silly accusations around in a drunken manner and has to withdraw them when sober.
Presumably Mr Denham has nothing to say on the issue of his organisation seemingly requesting its minority members to sign loyalty pledges?
And talking of Mr Denham isnt this the same degenerate who has been from Socialist blogs for his racism?
Just found this randomly during a search.
Typical of how internet rumours work!
No, Broder was not expelled from the AWL.
He left of his own accord, without writing anything, without speaking to anyone about it - just sent an email to the list and that was it.
Sigh...
Post a Comment