Imperialism And Resistance

a review of Vali Nasr’s recent book celebrating the so-called “middle class.” While Afrasiabi does a good job of highlighting the book’s shortcomings, he does not question what exactly Nasr means by the term “miiddle class.” Nasr does not belong to the “middle class” in the United States, rather, he is part of the liberal imperialist crowd and, based on this review, Nasr is merely using the word “middle class” as a euphemism to mean the liberal elite in Muslim majority countries. This class of the liberal elite (including the Greenies of Iran) have always allied with the western liberal imperialists, and industrial capitalism, and more than often act as native informants.

See also Who Is Vali Nasr?

(Vali) Nasr draws heavily on his personal observations, which is fine except that the interlocutors are nearly always from the upper stratum, reflecting his own middle-class predilections that lead him to draw too close a connection between political extremism and lower classes and poverty, smacking of both economic determinism, not to mention naïve globalism. On the other hand, the recent expansion of the “war on terror” to Somalia and Yemen, a country described by US President Barack Obama as ravaged by “crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies,” indicates that Nasr’s predictions of the growing demise of extremism may be wishful thinking.

The chapters covering Iran are largely uninteresting and stale, rehashing the known arguments about the Islamic revolution, “tragic” failure of secularism, etc. Yet in addition to the total lack of originality, the more egregious problem is that the book recycles the prevalent Western stereotypes regarding the Iranian regime as a sponsor of terrorism and nuclear proliferator intent on regional dominance, waging “wrong-headed policies” led by a “populist,” namely President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

…

What is more, with all its legitimization of a soft Islam, the book’s main defect is its Western-centrism, reflected in its prescriptions, for instance, on how the West should “cajole” the Iranian leaders to “rethink their national interests,” as if Western powers know any better or always have the country’s best interest in mind.

Mainstream thoughts nearly always end in the snares of their own conformism. Nasr quotes approvingly former British prime minister Tony Blair, one of the architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and wants us to believe that the West today has placed a “high premium” on democracy in the Middle East, a questionable assertion given the absence of any pressure on the oil sheikhdoms, or friendly authoritarian regimes, to democratize.

Indeed, the whole weltanschauung exhibited here is a fundamental step back into the bosom of (Edward) Saidian Orientalism that cannot possibly be received by the Muslim intelligentsia as anything other than indicative of a Western-centric mindset, thus making the author, an advisor to the US government, part of the problem and not the solution.

…

He prefers instead to paint a rosy and triumphant picture of the middle classes while sidestepping the issues of class struggle. But who is to say that the working classes are not more important or politically successful, since they often have the numbers on their side? For instance, they defeated the largely middle-class “green movement” in Iran at the polls last June. This is still too hard to swallow for mainstream academics issuing their solidarities from their ivory towers, paying only scant attention to the durability of Islamic populism founded on a potent mixture of religion and (anti-hegemonic) nationalism.

I can understand the Pakistani liberal-elite being either hoodwinked, or enthusiastically supporting native informants such as Perez Hoodbhoy, he is one of them, after all… But what does bother me (although less now than before) is that people like Hoodbhoy are celebrated as “progressives” and “leftists” by North American liberal-left medias such as Z Net that publishes his articles almost on a monthly basis (9 in the year 2009, 8 or 9 in 2008, and so forth…). Part of the problem is the rampant Islamophobia amongst liberal-leftists and, as a result, like their neo-con counterparts, they promote native informants who speak on behalf of their preferred ideology: secularism. Another part of the problem is that, also like their neo-con counterparts, the liberal-left is forever in search of that “good Muslim” who will appeal to their sensibilities, self-determination be damned. Such an attitude on part of the liberal-left media has left “progressives” in North America confused, and paralyzed – in effect playing right into the hands of the neo-conists, and liberal imperialists such as Obama and Obamaists.

In Hoodbhoy’s monochrome vision there are no shades of gray, his worldview is Manichean: You are with us, or you are with the terrorists. Opponents can only be driven by ‘evil’: there are no innocents. Violence is its own explanation, there is rarely a cause. To suggest one is to be an ‘apologist for extremism’. This is no leftist talking, this is Sharon-speak.

see also

Native Orientalists by M. Shahid Alam

In the euphoria of Edward Said’s success, left intellectuals have nearly forgotten that the West’s servant classes in the Periphery produce an indigenous Orientalism. I refer here to the coarser but more pernicious Orientalism of the brown Sahibs, who are free, behind their rhetoric of progress, to denigrate their own history and culture. A few of these native Orientalists are deracinated souls, who put down their own people for failing, as they see it, to keep up with the forward march of history. Most, however, are opportunists, lackeys, or wannabee lackeys, eager to join the native racketeers who manage the Periphery for the benefit of outside powers.

via Kayhan International

A Descendant of Abu Lahab

By Hussein Shariatmadari

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah remained tight-lipped over the entire course of the barbaric massacre of Gaza and its defenseless people by the criminal Zionist regime. He even encouraged the butchery based on the existing evidence and as confessed by Zionist President Shimon Pres and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. More importantly, he banned public protests in Saudi Arabia during the 22-day genocide in Gaza.

A day after the ceasefire (January 19), he rather awkwardly tried to discard or at least trim down his shameful collaboration with the Zionist regime in the slaughter of Gaza during an economic summit of Arab leaders in Kuwait.

1-The state-run media in Saudi Arabia, such as Al-Arabia, talked about an Arab channel of compromise”. Several American and Western media outlets also quoted King Abdullah as saying that “a drop of Palestinian blood is much more precious than all the world’s treasures” in their columns and clumsy – read ridiculous and silly – analyses.

King Abdullah’s comments in support of the people of Gaza and its martyrs should be taken on a face-value as unlike the buzzed-up media outcry of the “Arabian channel of compromise”, King Abdullah once again voiced his support for the Zionist regime and justified its barbaric crimes!

2-Al-Arabia referred to King Abdullah’s remarks as “straight and lambasting”. It then, in a reference to Israel stated: “Not only Islam, but also the Torah has declared that an eye should be for an eye and not necessarily for the eyes of the entire Palestinian population”!

As things stand, the Saudi king had to adopt a safe and ineffective position against Israel under pressure from the world public opinion. But still he fell short of dropping his support for the Zionists. He cunningly blamed Hamas for the war and referred to the barbaric invasion of Gaza as some kind of reprisal against the “invasion” of Israel by Hamas! This is in fact the very same false claim that was made by the Zionist regime as a legal justification before its all-out invasion of Gaza and the barbaric killings of its defenseless people. The regime claimed that Hamas triggered the war first.

The Saudi king blamed Hamas for the war, though. Of course, he also rebuked the Zionists – just in case. For instance, he said why the legal right of retribution was so disproportionate on the part of Israel?! He then tried to show the Zionists as faultless. This is amid the fact that the kid killing Zionist leaders had said before the war that they would invade Gaza with the sole purpose of destroying Hamas – although they never anticipated that the conflict could last 22 days.

Zionist Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said in an interview that after the 33-day war on Lebanon’s Hezbollah that Israeli army had several exercises and that they had improved their weak points for a swift victory in Gaza! Shimon Perez lauded the capabilities of War Minister Ehud Olmert as well as General Gabi Ashkenazi in leading the war. But three days after the breakout of the war, and just when Israel found out that it had made a mistake in its calculations, they blamed Hamas for the breakout of the conflict.

3-As quoted by Al-Arabia, King Abdullah said in another part of his “historic” speech in Kuwait that: “Israel must understand and realize that the chance for choosing the two options of war or peace will not remain forever and that the Arab peace initiative will not stay on the table eternally.”

Firstly, the people of Palestine, unlike the Zionist regime and the double-crossing Arab leaders, are not after peace – read compromise – with Israel. Rather, they seek the liberation of Palestine. Therefore, the comments made by King Abdullah on peace or war as options not only fail to warn Israel, but also are a reminder and an emphasis on the long-established Israeli demand for ending the “intifada” and the Palestinian resistance.

Secondly, the Saudi King’s reference to the Arab-Israeli peace initiative is the very same plan known as the “King Abdullah Peace Initiative”.

Thirdly, Kayhan newspaper has on several occasions demonstrated in the past that this particular plan is ten times more outrageous than the Camp David.

4-In a reference to the Palestinian factions, i.e., the resistance groups of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the PLO headed by the pro-Israeli Mahmoud Abbas, the Saudi king further said: “The Palestinian groups must appreciate that their differences are much more dangerous than Israeli attacks”!

He went on to state that Saudi Arabia will allocate $1 billion in aid for reconstruction of Gaza, emphasizing that the money will be handed over to Mahmoud Abbas – the very same Israeli element.

By urging the Palestinians to end their differences, King Abdullah was in fact asking Hamas and Islamic Jihad to end resistance and to recognize the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas. Indeed, the Saudi King has several times stated that he only recognizes the – pro-Israeli – government of Mahmoud Abbas (or Abu Mazen) and that the money will only go to the PLO.

5-The Saudi king further stated that: “Saudi Arabia would like to thank all those countries that helped stop murder and bloodshed in the Gaza Strip, mainly Egypt”! Apparently, he has forgotten that it was Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak who had phoned Shimon Peres and Olmert several times, urging them to bombard Gaza and obliterate Hamas. These two Zionist war criminals maintain that such an irrefutable charge has never been denied by Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

Just for the record, they never bothered to condemn the Zionist crimes during the 22-day war – at least in words. The Egyptian regime, equally, never bothered to reopen the Rafah Crossing for the women and children of Gaza.

Certainly, the descendent of Abu Lahab, a contemporary to the Prophet of Islam and cursed by God in the Holy Quran for his serious mischief against the Prophet (SAWA), has overlooked the truth that together with Hosni Mubarak, his collaboration with the Zionists in the massacre of the oppressed Palestinian people cannot and will not be forgotten and that a harsh punishment awaits them both. A punishment as such, although inconsiderate, will not be in this world, where they could still repent. Repentance in this world is only for those who would still be alive after their punishment.

As the establishment figures started to make their speeches from the podium, the crowd grew restless. I could hear mumblings of discontent among those around me. One man said he was sick and tired of pointless words of condemnation from Arab leaders. He wanted to see action against Israel, action that would help the Gazans in a practical way, action that would hurt Israel and force it to think twice before shedding Palestinian blood again.

These sentiments soon spread around the enormous stadium and before long the speakers’ voices were being drowned out amid pro-Islam, pro-Hamas, pro-jihad slogans.

Their slogans and chants soon turned toward the Arab leaders who they blamed, almost as much as Israel, for the plight of the people of Gaza. Top of the list was Egypt, which many feel gave Israel the green light to attack Hamas a few days ago. More anger was reserved for Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the secular Palestinian Fatah faction, who has made it clear that he would like to wrest control of Gaza from the elected Hamas government. Those Arab governments like Jordan and Mauritania, who are on friendly diplomatic terms with Israel, came in for yet more criticism. And last but not least, anger was directed toward the wealthy Arab governments, like Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf littoral countries, which could potentially do so much to resolve the Palestinian issue, but do little or nothing.

A mostly good and interesting article on the liberals’ fear of Islam is circulating some of the blogs. The article is especially good in its critique of the notorious Manji.

But while correctly calling for the liberals to listen to genuine Muslims and Arabs, the author says:

What does the liberal adulation of a professional Islamophobe – one openly adored by neoconservatives, no less – say about the state of American liberalism? Will liberals come to respect and support genuine Muslim and Arab voices, like Zogby and countless unrecognized figures?

But Zogby is of a Christian Arab background, he is not Muslim – so obviously he cannot be a “genuine” Muslim voice.

I understand that he adds “countless unrecognized figures” – but for someone who is running a blog on “American Muslims” – could he not have just added, or mentioned even one “genuine Muslim voice” in the article?

Furthermore, it is questionable if Zogby can even be considered a “genuine Arab voice” – given that he is part and parcel of the Democratic Party, whose record on Muslims and Arabs is just as bad, if not worse than the Republicans. In fact, Zogby is really not all that different than the liberals that the author critiques in his article. And to top it all off, Zogby is a member of the notorious Council of Foreign Relations.

I would suggest that rather than being vague about it, define what kind of a voice liberals and especially leftists should be listening to amongst Muslims. Unfortunately, many of those authentic voices, who really do care, and are rooted amongst the masses of Muslims worldwide, such Muslims would be dismissed by the left as “fundamentalists”. The task first of all for the left is to deal with their Islamophobia, classism, and racism with regards to Muslims – maybe then they’ll be ready to hear the truly authentic voices – and not just replace a neo-con voice, with a Democratic Party/Council of Foreign Relations voice.

Imperial Brain Trust, published in 1977, is the classic study of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that has, for decades, played a central behind the scenes role in shaping foreign policy choices. This private club and think tank, bringing together the New York establishment and the Washington foreign policy elite as well as other powerful forces, took the lead in laying out the plans for post-World II international order.

The book is still very relevant – the CFR plays a prominent role in the US war on Islam, and count native informants such as Vali Nasr, Reza Aslan, Fouad Ajami, and Fareed Zakaria as members.