I found this article from a few years back at
http://www.wsm.ie/story/1792
The trouble with Islam

01, 2003 21:19 by Andrew Flood - R&BR 7



Hezbollah flag flown on Dublin march


The September 11 attacks, the Afghan war that followed from it and the ongoing war in Israel/Palestine have once again raised the issue of Islam in the minds of many anarchists in Ireland and Britain. Not just because of the role Islam has in shaping those conflicts but also because militant Islam has become a far more noticeable presence on solidarity demonstrations.



The September 11 attacks, the Afghan war that followed from it and the ongoing war in Israel/Palestine have once again raised the issue of Islam in the minds of many anarchists in Ireland and Britain. Not just because of the role Islam has in shaping those conflicts but also because militant Islam has become a far more noticeable presence on solidarity demonstrations.

In Ireland we have seen the Hezbollah flag flown on demonstrations in Dublin and chants of 'God is Great' raised. On some London demonstrations it has been reported that chants of "Slay the Jews" and "Death to the socialists" have been raised. Another report on the same demonstration revealed that "ultrareactionaries of such organisations as Al Muhajiroun, ... held placards reading, 'Palestine is Muslim'. They chanted, "Skud, Skud Israel" and "Gas, gas Tel Aviv" .. In Trafalgar Square they hurled abuse (and a few missiles) at Tirza Waisel of the Israeli group, Just Peace."[1]

The left in general has not responded to this. Some groups like the British SWP have gone so far as to describe left criticism of the Islamic religion as 'Islamophobia' echoing the official line of their government which insists "The real Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and understanding." While there is a real need for the left to defend people who are Muslims from state and non-state victimisation in the aftermath of 9-11 this should not at any time imply a defence of the Islamic religion. Freedom of religion must also allow freedom from religion! At a SWP organised anti-war meeting in Birmingham, England it was reported that Islamic fundamentalists there "segregated the meeting, guiding/intimidating Muslim women into a women's only section, apprehended a Muslim looking woman because she had allegedly been drinking, prevented the critics of Muslim fundamentalists from entering the meeting and used violence against them."[2]

The left in Ireland has been unsure how to rise to this challenge, although on the Palestine solidarity march in Dublin on April 27th 2002 anarchists did march with placards reading 'End the occupation: Support Israeli refuseniks' in English, Hebrew and Arabic and chanted 'No Gods, no Masters, no States, no Wars". But otherwise fundamentalist chants have remained unchallenged.

Over 130 years ago the anarchist Micheal Bakunin wrote "I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." Writing of the Christian churches in Europe, he said "In talking to us of God they propose, they desire, to elevate us, emancipate us, ennoble us, and, on the contrary, they crush and degrade us. With the name of God they imagine that they can establish fraternity among men, and, on the contrary, they create pride, contempt; they sow discord, hatred, war; they establish slavery." These words today are applicable to Islam.

This hostility to organised religion and the promotion of a material rather than spiritual understanding of the world is common to most of the anarchist movement, although there are exceptions. It was developed in the face of Christian state-church systems that often bore similarities to the Islamic State rule found today. Anarchist hostility to religion tended to be strongest in those countries where the church and state were almost inseparable, in particular in Spain.

Islam in general believes that no "division between matters social, political and religious should exist." The idea of Islamic government and Islamic law is not something confined to what is called 'Islamic fundamentalism' but is an expected belief of all Muslims. Under Shari'a (Islamic) law the penalty for Apostasy (Muslims who reject Islam, for instance they "might state that the universe has always existed from eternity"), is execution for men and life imprisonment for women. So, if anything, Islam today attempts to maintain a much tighter control of the thoughts in people's heads than Christianity has done since the time of Galileo.

Islam insists that the Quran is almost entirely a document dictated by God to Muhammad. Like most 'holy books' it is full of absurdities and cruelties which are well documented on the web by Muslim apostates. For instance in Quran 5:33 God commands "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land." God also dictates that women are second class citizens, in Quran 4:34 he dictates "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion andmonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

Of course anyone who is familiar with the Old Testament of the Christian and Jewish religions will know there is nothing in the Quran that is any worse then what is found there. Even the Christian New Testament contains justifications for slavery e.g. Matthew: 24:46 "Blessed is that slave whom the master finds at work when he comes. ... But if that evil slave ... begins to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with drunkards, then the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not foresee, and will cut him in two, and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." The difference is that the attempt to impose a Christian state has been defeated almost everywhere. The fundamentalist movements that seek to promote the idea may be influential (as shown by their attacks in the US on the teaching of evolution) but in general do not attempt to impose their complete religious program.

With Islam however we see the continued existence of religious states in Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan to name three. We also see a growing movement that seeks to create new Islamic states, even in multi-faith countries like Lebanon, Egypt and Israel/Palestine and which actively seeks to impose Islamic law on Muslim communities everywhere. In Northern Nigeria this has resulted in high profile cases where Islamic courts have sentenced women to death by stoning for 'adultery'. About 1 in 5 of the world's population is Muslim.

The general label applied to this movement is Islamic fundamentalism. It's not a great label for a wide range of reasons, not least because it lumps together some very different trends and ignores the fact that many of the most objectionable elements are part of mainstream Islam. That said I'm going to use it anyway because there are no better alternatives that people will readily understand.

The rise of fundamentalism in the modern period owes much to the struggle against colonialism and the failure of the Arab nationalist projects to deliver a better life for the working class, including the peasantry of the region. Frequently it is based on a revolt against colonial control on the one hand and the westernisation of the country on the other. The failure of successful national liberation struggles to relieve the desperate poverty of the masses on the one hand and the obvious growing enrichment of the westernised elites on the other leads easily to the idea that the answer lies in a return to 'traditional values'.

The first of these movements to be successful was Wahhabism which brought Ibn Saud to power in what was to become Saudi Arabia. In this case, as with the early spread of Islam across North Africa, Wahhabism was to provide essential glue to hold together a society created by conquest in a manner similar to nationalism. Wahhabism was imposed by force with massacres on the taking of Mecca and widespread destruction of religious sites that were considered un-Islamic. Religious police raided homes, beating those they suspected of smoking tobacco. Wahhabism was also pretty much the only genuine 'primitivist' version of Islam as it was anti-industrial. When they rose against Ibn Saud in 1927 one reason for their revolt was Saud's allowing of telephones into the country! Modern fundamentalists may talk of a return to traditional values but the societies they seek to create include aspects of advanced modern technology, in particular if it is of military use!

Saudi came to play a similar role in relation to the export of fundamentalism that the USSR played in the spread of Leninism. Particularly with the growth of the oil industry in Saudi large sums of money were provided to finance the infrastructure of fundamentalist groups in other countries and a huge network of religious schools in Saudi itself. Saudi, like Moscow, became the place of training, support and refuge for fundamentalist activists. And funds could be exported which provided schools, meeting places and even religious based welfare systems to the increasingly desperate working class of the cities and countryside in the Arab world. In the conditions of desperate poverty that exist this cre - ates the infrastructure that fundamentalism grows out of.

One Lebanese Marxist, writing of this and the failure of the somewhat more secular Arab nationalism of Nassar, described the situation. "Then came the October war [against Israel] with its parade of intense Islamic propaganda, and the oil boom which enabled Libya and especially Saudi Arabia to distribute their petrodollars to the integralist (fundamentalist) groups everywhere in order to undermine left-wing extremists, or pro-Soviet groups as in Syria. Even at the time when the modernist statist bourgeois faction was still credible, Saudi Arabia was used as the prototype by repressed or persecuted Islamic archaism; and its emergence following the October war on the ruins of Nassar's Egypt as the leader of the Arab world gave the Brotherhoods of Sunni Islam not only more subsidies, but the model of an Islam true to itself. The propaganda pounded out by western media - depicting Saudi Arabia as the new giant with the power of life and death over western civilisation - stimulated, in old and young alike, the nostalgic old desire for the return of Islam to its former strength."[3]

The role of the west in relation to fundamentalism has been quite complex. Up to the Iranian revolution in 1979 it was simple, promoting fundamentalism was seen as a way of advancing the western agenda by undermining Soviet influence and the various nationalist leaders of the region who wanted to re-direct some of the wealth towards development. "M. Copland, the former chief of the CIA in the Middle East, revealed in his book The Game of Nations that from the 1950s the CIA began to encourage the Muslim Brotherhood to counteract the communist influence in Egypt." Even after the Iranian revolution, "French president Giscard d'Estaing, confided to members of his cabinet before taking the plane for the Gulf in March 1980: "To combat Communism we have to oppose it with another ideology. In the West, we have nothing. This is why we must support Islam."[4]

The facts of western support for the Afghan mujheedeen and the more limited support for the Taliban that followed have been so well documented since S11 that I don't intend to repeat them here. But it is important to realise that this does not mean that the fundamentalists are simply a creation of the west that has gotten out of control. They have their own dynamic and their own wealthy backers in Saudi Arabia. Lack of western support would have hurt their war against the Soviet occupation but the war would still have gone on.

Fundamentalism remains a mass movement. In almost all of North Africa and the Middle East it is the only mass movement that threatens the stability of the regimes there in any way. It is nakedly hostile to the left in all its forms, Hezbollah for instance has carried out attacks on even the tame Lebanese Communist Party, bombing its offices. The Iranian revolution in 1979 saw a movement of workers councils (Shora) emerge that sought to take over the management of production. "The regime introduced a law aimed at undermining worker self-management by banning shora involvement in management affairs - while at the same time trying to force class collaboration by insisting that management must be allowed to participate in the shoras." [5] Since then, according to the Iranian Revolutionary Socialists' League, the "following groups have all been attacked throughout the reign of the mullahs:

workers, trade unionists, left-wing and socialist activists
women and women's/feminist groups
national and religious minorities
political oppositionists, including various monarchist, Islamic and liberal groups
writers, journalists, artists, intellectuals and students;
peasants and tribal groups;
homosexuals and others who follow an 'un-Islamic' life-style." 6
For opportunistic reasons sections of the western left are happy to build alliances with Islamic fundamentalist groups that are not only essentially uncritical but that discourage others from raising criticisms. This is sometimes defended by the straightforward observance that such groups oppose 'western imperialism' and in countries with large Muslim populations sometimes succeed in attracting the masses to their organisations.

The problem with this position is that it fails to recognise the hostility of such groups to the left - a hostility that includes physical attacks and murder- in the countries where they are strong. This is not terribly different from the situation with fascist groups in the west. Of course for the western left with no basis in immigrant Muslim communities this is easy to ignore - they are not the targets of such activities themselves.

Anarchists have a long and proud tradition of fighting the power of organised religion, including in countries like Spain fighting fascist gangs formed on a religious basis. While we recognise the freedom of people to hold a religion we also recognise that there has to be a freedom from religion - an idea that runs against the basis of Islam. Anarchists in the Middle East and beyond will need to determine for themselves the most effective ways of counteracting the influence of the fundamentalists there. In the west we can at least make sure their attempts to impose themselves on the immigrant communities are opposed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Peter Manson, weekly worker 433, May 2002.
2) Salman, ISF journal, November 2001, http://www.isf.org.uk
3) Latif Lakhdar, Khamsin: Journal of Revolutionary Socialists of the Middle East. (1981)
4) ibid
5) Michael Schmidt, Religous fundamentalist regimes: a lesson from the Iranian revolution 1978-1979. Zabalaza Journal, South Africa, Number 2, March 2002
6) http://www.kargar.org/english.htm

Do you think that those westerners who support Israel and wave the flag also support any Jewish theological paradigm? Absolutely not. The same is true for leftists who wave the Hizb Allah flag. We are not Muslims, but we have no problem granting rhetorical support for the primary groups fighting for the liberation of their people. No doubt the entire political landscape can and will change once Israel is forced to grant full autonomy to Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank. At that point we can argue the finer points of the struggle. But for the international stage, right now, I'm not afraid to say it: I critically support Hizb Allah and Hamas in their struggle against foreign oppression, murders and violence.

Also, this belongs in Religion, Discrimination or possibly Politics. I'll ask another mod to move it for me since I don't have that power.

This needs moving to Religion, I think.

Moved

I thought you were a Luxemburgist? Surely the Luxemburgist line usually makes considerably more sense than that.

He's a anti-Islam Western chauvinist disgusting reactionary piece of filth who should be banned, I recommend everyone puts him on ignore as I have.

No, I am posting this material as the follow on from an interesting discussion, largely with Kayser Soo, in which we we analysed the positions of ideologies in relation to each other. If you follow this link from the article you will see where it came from and who wrote it. The article does not necessarily reflect my position but was there for debate.

As for your comments, well when you can refrain from using emotive, knee-jerk language and actually bother to read things other than spout venom all over the place I might be more inclined to listen to what you say.

PS This is about the third time you have told me you're ignoring me!

Religion is religion is religion.
I know you may struggle to come to terms with this fact, but Islam is not the black scourge of religious doctrines; Christian and Jewish fundamentalism are no less reactionary than the Islamic variety, much as pro-Zionist Christians (such as yourself, no?) may work themselves into a chauvinist frenzy insisting otherwise (while defending/advocating ethnic cleansing, venerating a creed based around scripture which explicitly condemns homosexuals to death [surely you must detest the "sodomites" like a Bible-true Christian?], justifies murder in the name of blind faith, ceaselessly worships wholly-unconditional obedience to tyrannical authority [been to the Mount to see Avraham Avinu lately?], adulates utter ignorance from the very first pages of Genesis, and relentlessly spews all variety of vicious misogyny).

And the same can be said - in terms of predominantly reactionary character and function - of virtually all non-Abrahamic religious fundamentalism as well, in spite of the popular trend among (petit-)bourgeois Western liberals/New Age hippies to naively exalt religions like Hinduism and Buddhism as "pure" and "peaceful" and "the good ones, brah".

As Marx said, "the religious world is but the reflex of the real world". Religion is not some beast unto itself, manifest in "righteous" varieties and "evil" varieties; it is the product of material conditions, and material conditions determine the role it plays in a given society. The institutional strength of Islam in numerous "third-world" nations attests to this fact, rather than being a representation of some sort of special ferocity unique to Islamic doctrine as you seem to want to believe.

Anyway, didn't you make a thread on this exact same topic just the other day? I just find it extremely suspect that you are so content to single out Islam as some sort of "black sheep" of religion; this would perhaps - as a matter of practicality - be the logical 'procedure' for a communist and militant atheist who wanted to engage "compatriots" and argue and agitate against religion in a society in which the dominant religion is Islam. But for a Christian living in the West, in a region where the dominant religion is some form of Christianity (Catholicism, yes?) to be so insistent upon discussing the dangers and unparalleled barbarism of Islam when Christianity has been a prime feature of such unconscionable, superlative bloodlettings (really, have you any doubt that Christianity takes the cake as the Abrahamic religion used to justify the most mass murder?) really calls your intentions into question here. I would certainly approach this thread in a different manner if you were an anti-theist opposed to all religion, but the fact that you are a Christian really causes the whole thing to reek of chauvinism and, needless to say, flagrant hypocrisy.

On a side-note, and because you are a Christian, I have to ask you: have you ever read your own Old Testament???!

Religion is religion is religion.

I agree- there is a difference between religion and spirituality which has been largely lost in the so-called Modern World. I consider myself to be spiritual and have a personal belief rather than religious.

I know you may struggle to come to terms with this fact, but Islam is not the black scourge of religious doctrines; Christian and Jewish fundamentalism are no less reactionary than the Islamic variety, much as pro-Zionist Christians (such as yourself, no?)

Pro-Zionist Christian... LOL!!! Couldn't be further than the truth. I admit my cultural background is Judaeo-Christian as most people with a Western and/or European background so that is bound to show in my levels of awareness of theology. I mean, I can quote the Old Testament better than I can the Vedas, for example. I don't want to go into my own spiritual beliefs here as I don't think there is any point, but I can assure the Zionists would not like my view of the Old Testament nor of Zionism and mainstream Judaism and the Christians would brand me a heretic for my views on Jesus- if you want to categorise me as you seem so intent to then the nearest would be a "Gnostic humanist".

I am not saying that Islam per se is the black scourge of religion no more than any ideology but Islam, or rather Islamists, are in the news at the moment, the Islamic world is where stuff is "happening" and this thread along with the other one was posted in the context of analysing a so-called hot-potato from different leftwing viewpoints. If you want I could post you my own critique of Christianity and Judaism from a political and personal point of view. I would also be interested in threads on various other religions such as Hinduism (which I did mention in an earlier thread) or Buddhism but I do not have the knowledge and insight into those belief systems which would be necessary in order to give a fair appraisal.

As another member, Proudcomrade pointed out the other day, we are all perfectly aware of the defects of the Abrahamic religions, that does not mean that no one may dare offer a critique of one in particular. I remind you that I did not write this article and draw your attention to its source.

And the same can be said - in terms of predominantly reactionary character and function - of virtually all non-Abrahamic religious fundamentalism as well, in spite of the popular trend among (petit-)bourgeois Western liberals/New Age hippies to naively exalt religions like Hinduism and Buddhism as "pure" and "peaceful" and "the good ones, brah".

I agree, and we could also discuss them in a separate thread. I personally do not consider Hinduism to be all that peacable anyway. As for Buddhism, I admit my idea of Buddhism is largely that of the 1960's generation of hippies that was "marketed" in the west and conceded that in anothe thread. By the way, where is your evidence that "New Age" stuff is specifically the domain of the so-called petit-bourgeois?

As Marx said, "the religious world is but the reflex of the real world". Religion is not some beast unto itself, manifest in "righteous" varieties of religion and "evil" varieties; it is the product of material conditions, and material conditions determine the role it plays in a given society. The institutional strength of Islam in numerous "third-world" nations attests to this fact, rather than being a representation of some sort of special ferocity unique to Islamic doctrine as you seem to want to believe.

Perhaps so, but tell that to the Egyptian Copts for example.... How can you equate Islam with the "Third World" as you call it? Islam is not merely present in the developing world, also in Europe in historical nations such as Bosnia and Albania and decidedly rich and capitalistic nations such as Malaysia as well as the oil-rich monarchies of the Arabian peninsula.

special ferocity unique to Islamic- "unceasing war on the infidel" or more poeticall Jihad as-sayf "the jihad of the sword". Islam within itself struggles with the term and how to categorise jihad (legitimate) and fasad (illegitimate).

You could also point to the difference that whereas Salman Rushdie had a fatwah put on him for his Satanic Verses by the supreme Islamic leader of Iran, a place where the tomb of the assassin who was killed in the attempt on Rushdie's life in London is now venerated as that of a martyr, or that the Hezbollah leader Nasrallah commented about millions of muslims that he considered prepared to carry out such an assassination at the same time as describing the people of Denmark, Norway and France as a rabble who insult the prophet... Dan Brown's highly controversial book received a verbal condemnation from the Vatican- arguably the most "rightwing" of Christian bodies. Now I am not defending the Vatican and I am not denying that there are also small groups of radical christians who blow up abortion clinics in the US, but I am trying at least to show you why a discussion of Islamism and Islam is valid here and now.

Anyway, didn't you make a thread on this exact same topic just the other day?

No, the other thread was actually an Islamic point of view critique of Marxism from two different authors.

You keep saying I am a Christian all over the place and then you resort to the age-old indirect way of stereotyping me by challenging me on whether or not I have read the Old Testament. Firstly, if being a Christian means trying to apply the words and deeds of Jesus then I suppose the answer would be yes, if being a Christian means accepting the Disney-like mythology and downright deception and hypocrisy that is built around Christianity then no.

I get the feeling that whereas you can freely (and it is your right) challenge Christianity and Judaism without reproach any attempt to offer a critique of Islam is automatically deemed as chauvinism. The difference is, as the anarchist writer of this article points out, I do not see many Magen Davids or Crosses being flown at anarchist/leftist/anti-capitalist rallies where I do see an increasing tendency for an Islamist (note I say Islamist and not Islamic) presence.

May I ask then, as someone who challenges Christianity have you read the Gnostic Gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls and all the other bits and pieces that conveniently got "left out" by the Emperor Constantine and his successors? Have you ever spent time with Sufi muslims, read the Qu'ran, the Sunnah and Hadith? The Torah, Tanakh in Hebrew or the Talmudic commentaries?

My last point would, be- I found this article and was hoping for a discussion on the article itself and the points made from an anarchist point of view.

First of all, when people post here about other religions and say that the religion itself and not the way religion is used by ruling classes or reactionaries, then yes, it is challenged. When some activist claims that the source of the Israel/Palestine conflict says that judiaism itself or jews are the source of the problem, then that is just antisemitism masquerading as politics in my view and I challenge it. When someone claims that the problem in the US stems from Christianity itself rather than a political ideology that wraps evangelicalism around itself, they are wrong and should be challenged.

Second, singling out Islam in the US or in Europe where Islamophobia is being cultivated and used by the ruling classes to justify crackdowns on people's rights at home and wars abroad, is playing into chauvinism and scapegoating.

But mostly I think people are calling you on this because you have created several posts on it and that just seems suspicious.

First of all, when people post here about other religions and say that the religion itself and not the way religion is used by ruling classes or reactionaries, then yes, it is challenged. When some activist claims that the source of the Israel/Palestine conflict says that judiaism itself or jews are the source of the problem, then that is just antisemitism masquerading as politics in my view and I challenge it. When someone claims that the problem in the US stems from Christianity itself rather than a political ideology that wraps evangelicalism around itself, they are wrong and should be challenged.

-I agree with you.

Second, singling out Islam in the US or in Europe where Islamophobia is being cultivated and used by the ruling classes to justify crackdowns on people's rights at home and wars abroad, is playing into chauvinism and scapegoating.

That's the problem, anyone who dares offer any critique of Islam whatsoever is branded as islamophobic regardless of what they say. No one, or at least I am not anyway, is trying to single out Islam here, there have no doubt been many threads about numerous religious belief-systems but I reiterate my point about Islamism being in the news and an issue in the here and now.

To give one example of my first point, Oriana Fallaci was a well-known Italian journalist who had been a partisan and anti-fasicst during the Second World War, in her long and illustrious career she had interviewed amongst others Ayatollah Khomeini, Colonel Gaddafi, Golda Meir and Lech Walesa to name but a few, when she dared to criticise Islamism she was branded a racist and islamophobe and warrants were issued for her arrest (ironically) in Switzerland- they were refused because of the Italian laws regarding freedom of speech.

Now, Fallaci's words were not well-chosen and her points of view (typical of Italian journalistic style) were radical- but here was a person on the lifelong side of the left who dared to offer a criticisim of Islam based largely on her experiences with various Islamic leaders and she was instantly branded as an Islamophobe. What changed Fallaci then? Or we could look at Christopher Hitchens estrangement from the European left after the Salman Rushdie fatwah controversy. Or perhaps you could read the work of Dr Malise Ruthven?

But mostly I think people are calling you on this because you have created several posts on it and that just seems suspicious.

Well, people are free to infer what they wish. But at the same time it's a bit like inferring that everone who posts threads against "Zionism" is de facto a member of Hezbollah or whatever- an assumption.

I would also to point you to an article on Islamic Socialism here
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...ocialism-hs-07

How so? I can't find the source atm, but i recall Rosa's line being very close to mine on the issue. Look up Israel - Rosa Luxemburg and maybe you could find it.

Well, since she died a fair while before Israel was founded, I don't think she had a specific line on Israel/Palestine, but I think her views on Poland and national independence in general are relevant.
From Paul Mattick's "Rosa Luxemburg in retrospect":
More from the World Socialist Movement here:
I think the idea of a genuinely independent Palestine in the age of imperialism is a "utopian fantasy" in the same way; if it managed to break out of Israeli/US dominance, it would only be by becoming a client state of Iran or another powerful local state like Egypt. I don't see that as a goal particularly worth struggling for.

This is a verbal warning. This is nothing but slander and completely unacceptable.

- August

I appreciate these quotes from Rosa. Of course, as evidenced in her arguments here, different conditions require different approaches. That's why my support for those movements is critical, not only for their oft-religious nature, but also for some of the issues for labor rights and their indiscriminate tactics.

I would hope you would agree, for instance, that S. African Apartheid was/is a stumbling block for any workers' rights movement. I don't see the Palestinian struggle as different in this regard.