So I'm aware there's an Iran thread up, but I want to have a talk about the Middle East. Where it has been, where it is, where it is going. This is the place to discuss your favorite Leftist Middle Eastern groups, secular Arab nationalism, the history of CIA subversion, Islamism and its consequences, etc etc.

I'd like to start off by posting this fine talk I found by As'ad Abukhalil. I really enjoyed it because he took a nice position, which was basically to recognize the threat of blindly supporting any "arab spring" type movements and admitting that most of them are deeply infiltrated by the USA through radical islamist forces and so on. However he also illustrates how forces upheld by many "Anti-Imperialists" such as the Assad government as the Progressive forces of the Middle East have a history of betraying the Leftist factions that often bring them to power, so the revolutionary position is to disavow US intervention but on the basis of true socialist revolution rather than "critical support" for autocratic opportunists.


However feel free to discuss any of the aforementioned topics or anything else relating to the Middle East, I merely posted this talk to get things going

Other urls found in this thread:


Fuck the middle east
There's too many problems
They just get in the way
We could sure live without em

Wow, such an apt analysis that really articulates your position well



Twas merely a jest

I just think 'the middle east' is a very broad topic, the gulf states are shitty oil feudalism, Iran is okay, Israel are assholes, most of the rest of the countries just suck to live in, fuck US imperialism and all that

Government full of reactionaries
Only relevant leftist parties are succdems
Tel-Aviv is idpol central, the only communist I know is an idealist
Periphery is bydlos
Economy not shaping up
Bibi keeps embarrassing himself
But you know what's the worst part about living in Israel? Is that war is so normalized that you expect it like some natural cycle every few years. In fact, geopolitical sabre rattling is such an everyday occurrence that it's the most casual news to hear on the radio, you can't even tell anymore when it's actually heating up. I may as well start campaigning for Bennett's or Lieberman's parties just to accelerate the inevitable, Israel anyway has only like 20-30 years to survive, 50 tops.

I know there are at least two more Israelis on this board, a Democratic Confederalist who was recognizable by his back-then Ro java flag (supposedly the one that was accused of Irish shitposting in the Ro java thread), and another one who as far as I know less frequently comes here. Where do I meet actual leftists?

Why don't you meet with the irrelevant leftist parties like the communist one? Maybe engaging and taking to them would at least help you to keep sane

What went wrong?

What you need to realize is that Israel is innately reactionary and that nothing revolutionary can possibly come out of it. Israel itself has to be abolished before anything remotely progressive can come from it

It's either that (a post-Zionism single state solution) or a two state solution. Neither of which will happen by the looks of it until the next world war.


But it literally says exploitation is outlawed and that the people should own and control their own resources?

Two state solution is a liberal utopian pipe dream. One state solution is inevitable it's simply a matter of which state

Aside from the fact that the Israeli government actively works against it, is there any other consideration? Because from what I've seen Arabs are quite willing to compromise.

But see you're still missing the point. Arabs can be for it all day, Israel will literally never be for it. Israel has to cease to exist as a national entity or else Palestine will. One will have to cease to the other. There is NO middle in this scenario. Perhaps there could have been decades ago, but we past that point a LONG time ago

It talks about the prohibiting of exploitation in the party constitution which is just a declaration of intent and nothing enshrined with any power and talk about intent,


Okay you mentioned that but you didn't really engage it or understand the implication of what you said. If Israel works against it it won't happen without violence. If the two Intifadas hadn't occurred and there had been the slightest pushback from other countries Israel would probably already have completely wiped out Palestine


Thread theme



post ME politics in a memri nutshell


All of them made me blow air out my nose.

Guys, how do we bring back Jamahiriya?

>>>/leftpol/ is that way

supporting Iran


i tought leftypol was above cherrypicking single miniscule acts to try and stirr popular opinion with

Why does Ayatollah Khomeini look like Sean Connery to me?

i doubt it.

/leftpol/s liberals aren't.

you call me a liberal motherfucker? wanna fight nigga?

ISIS have to go.

there are still its supporters armed and fighting in libya. it's probably just a matter of time for things to fall together in their place.

what can i say, james bond had alot of chicks round the world

did you post that JIDF pic ironically or not?

go figure.

we dont beat kids here. contact your local school bully for support


do you know what a paradox is?

yeah sure ISIS love Israel and the Jews. They are basically best friends. duh!



>>>/leftpol/ go shill for imperialism where your liberal friends are waiting for you


define imperialism annarkiddie NOW

Honestly ban worthy, fuck off back to reddit.

OKAY, anarkiddy false flagging faggot
define retar… nevermind your posts already did
now fuck off to your liberal shithole, faggot

yeah like we both didn't knew you never read that

also stop using papa stalin as your poster boy you islam loving kulak

as said before: retarded

whereever your heart carries you, my liberal fag

Israel pretends to be pro 2 state as it allows them to expand their "diplomatic" influence. The 2 state solution can't work now, the settlements will never be eveacuated it's like expecting the whites to give australia back to the aborigines. Never gonna happen. Arabs are clutching at straws, Israel wants to expand from the Euphrates to the Nile and both sides are taking everyone else for a long ride.

PROTIPP: Soviet Union was imperialist

ummm no.

I think he means the Saudis are quite willing to sell the Palestinians out.


what is a 'Palestianians'?


Lenin was an bourgeois infidel tbh.

+ stop projecting please.

By supporting the Green Resistance in their struggle against NATO imperialism.

a national of palestine


SSNP>Baathists as far as non-marxist "Arab socialists"

Originally it comes from the old english 'penis stain'.

wow JIDF is in full force today. dont you have Holla Forums to shitpost in?


where does the word KIKE come from?

wrong. stopped reading right there.
ignore khazar posts

Think about it from the Saudis point of view.
You have a bunch of people who look exactly like stereotypical jews, they live in the place where Jews have lived for thousands of years, but they claim to be muslim.

Im not saying its a Jewish trick but it clearly is a Jewish trick.

heres some more on israeli support to jihadists

guess who's going to gulag!

aand that's why you're wrong kiddo.

jewsih elites
t. stalin before jews backstab him

you think i kept on reading JIDF propaganda?

the convinced antisemite always reveals himself. please go to gulag now


want proofs?

you already said this in all your posts

you are really a special kind of pathetic peace of shit.

oh yeah they are very woke indeed




are you saying franklin was right?

Worst thread in the catalog

Fucking go back to Holla Forums with this bullshit you cumstain. Elites are elites. Having a foreskin won't make you worse or better if you're a porky. That's everything that counts.

the memri tv memes were alright tbh

oh im not the one that started with jewish elites, even if the top brass is on average coincidentially of jewish descent.
and why jump to ad hominems, cant you engage in a normal debate without of accusing me of being an antisemite, shitsakin, nazi, pol poster, etc

From the Yiddish word for circle, which is what illiterate Jewish immigrants used to sign their entry forms with when coming to America.

Interesting tidbit I found in a document referenced by Chomsky. It's a National Security Council report on the Middle East (near East) from 1958 to Eisenhower.

Here's the quote:

I struggle to see how anyone could read this, the first paragraph of a public document written by a US department for the President to read, and still think the military wants to dominate the Middle East for any other reason but the extraction of capital and geopolitical hegemony.

Here's the source:

you can start arguing anytime.

They don't realize that it is domination. Being part of the so-called "Free World" implies they are going to be free, right? Sadly most don't see further than this.

meant to say "still not think"

Yeah it's pretty sad. The language of the document is also interesting because it uses words like "perceived" "think" "of the opinion of" etc when referring to the Arabs analysis of the US's aid to Israel and their shady dealings with the reactionary leaders in the region. At one point it flatly says that the Arabs "over exaggerate" the amount of aid the US gives to Israel lmao

israel has done more bad than good, reverting to the discussion here:

Language is always interesting, it's must to question not only what is said, but how is it said.

why would you even say something like that? might as well say "Nazi Germany did more bad than good."

It's funny because they are confusing Benjamin Franklin with Franklin Roosevelt and Benjamin lived hundreds of years ago.


Israel ain't *actually* planning on annexing east Egypt, right? That's the whole fucking length of the downstream Nile! What would Egypt be without the Nile!?

Just join a kimitza or however there called. Also if you’re in the Middle East you could move to over a dozen US military bases in Syria.

The guy on the left in the last image looks like Cenk Uygur.

TH\here’s a bible quote in the old testament that says the Jews will get all the land from the nile to the Euphrates.

they did dint they?

yeah but it sounds fucking retarded

The few amount of none crazy Israelis fled to Europe or America a long time ago m8. The place is quite literally in the same situation as Nazi Germany in 1935 or so

i really just can't believe we are still there, and how much usa has changed since 911. like, kids nowadays dont evne know what pre 911 america was like.

it was pretty cool. we had wto, environmental protests, shit was looking somewhat positive, and bam, this fucking 911 shit (well, the 2nd one i mean) happens.

and we are still over there.

somedays i just stop and think about that and where we would be if the left kept growing around the late 90s, or like, Nader would have become pres in 2000.

im curious, do you feel the same way about hte usa? if not, why, if yes, why… etc

not him but yes, communist revolution in the USA necessitates breaking it up into different territories.


The American Revolution was an attempt to actualize the ideology of the Enlightenment Liberalism in the most radical way possible. Therefore, it is the place where capitalism has been the most brutal and blatant in its terrorism. The European nations evolved from fuedalism into capitalism, the USA literally has always been the most blatantly capitalist country on the planet. In its imperialist turn, it has displaced these values onto the majority of other nations. Therfore the end of capitalism must also mean the end of the USA as we know it

As someone who is one of the kids you are talking about, I kind of think you have nostalgia goggles on. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's just an empirical fact that the USA was going to eat itself and become a dystopian nightmare no matter what. Blaming the erosion of the USA on 9/11 is to miss the point imo

Nah, manifest destiny under the red banner is what's needed.

welllets make it more specific to sound smart:
israel claims to combat terrorism but is infact one of the primary supporters of terrorism and is largečy responsible for the current situation in the middle east

i always find it funny how most americans dont know a single terrorist attack on US soil before 911. even the unabomber is getting forgotten


what the fuck


The American Revolution's ideal was actually a society of yeoman farmers who farmed and owned small plots of land. It was explicitly anti-capitalist and against industrialization. Republicanism was just as important if not more so than Liberalism. In fact, Britain was the more capitalist country due to developing industry earlier on the same brutal model that 19th century America would employ. (British industrialization was the most brutal and crushing on workers, with the worker's movement crippled until the early 20th century.)

Most of the American populace actually viewed capitalism with skepticism at best, and the only pro-capitalists were the Federalists and later Whigs. In fact, the reason why the West was settled was to delay capitalism by offering free land for Americans to homestead, thus preventing capitalism from taking root. You can't have capitalism if the labor force is rural and owns their own land. Capitalism only took real root in America due to the mass immigration of Irish workers during the mid-19th century. That and the GOP quickly became porky-dominated after the Civil War. If it weren't for the Civil War and mass immigration, American industrialization would've taken the slow and steady route of France as opposed to the brutal route of the British.

The american revolution was pretty pointless when you think about it. If it never happens i guess we would be more like Canada and have a prime minister and parliamentary system. And the crown would have just let us be free by ourselves. The american revolution is pretty much "no dad, fuck youuuuuuuuuuuu. you pay for the fucking tea dadddddddd, i like mom better, she's french"

No one will stop Israel. You should have concluded this a long time ago. Western Europe wont do anything beyond writing angry letter tier nothingness. Both the mainstream parties in america have a bipartisan hard on for Israel and have been captured through bribes, lobbying, and being genuinely retarded Zionists. The middle east is either a crater or the saudis who see an alliance with the jews against shia Iran in the future.

The far right doesnt really care about Israel at all, and has no interest in defending gross brown people even if its against jews.

So the only threat left to israel is the far left, which organizes people and protests.
And the jews realize this and its why they hate BDS so much and have neutralized it.

The two state solution is dead, its going to be one state apartheid.

The way the Palestinians have been fighting is not working, they fire some bottle rockets, the iron dome captures most of them. They blow themselves up, the jews build a wall.

Look man, not picking sides here but the jews really seem to want it more….

I think the only card the palis have left will have to be something horrific. And by that i mean something nuclear or biological. If they have it in them to do that.

Otherwise i see them just end up being like the native americans and living on smaller and smaller reservations

in the west nazism, genocide and wamongering is only OK when jews do it.

I have missed you Gadsden-Flag :’-)
You’ve always been the best name tag on this board.

not really. it crippled the british in their war in europe (the american revolution on itself was insignificant crap compared to what was going on in europe, contrary to what most americans beleive). it also eccelarated the pace of the decline of monarchies and the rise of liberalism in europe.

canada is only doing better than america because its insignificant enough not to be bothered by elites who preffered to move to the US.

this basically.

youd be surprised to know that alot of the american far right suddenly supports israel now that Trump said its ok.

or just drown israel in their own medicine.
liberalise the society and goverment to weaken the deep state. in turn this will lead to a free4all in the infrastructure much like in america and europe, a liberalisation of migration and citizenship policies and then an eventual demographic crisis. israel is surrounded by arab nations and saudi arabia, turkey, egypt and others would doubtesly try to exploit the demographic unbalance to disrupt the zionist hegemoney in the region to bolster their own.

that start-off point here would be supporting the israeli far left and liberal movements that will destabilise the social infrasructure and enable a demographic collapse of the jewsih state

when i say far right i mean actual fascists and not neocons
The only right wingers that support Israel are neocons.
Traditionalists and fascists are indifferent. They hate jews and muslims equally. Another thing is Israel has the support of evangelicals.

Muslims have really fucked up their reputation in the west with non stop terrorism, and inability to court any groups besides the far left

israel has the support of most protestant communities in the US due to the conservative paradigm influeced by top-down by lobbies

that would be the media that needs to propagate perpetual war in the middle east and a panic at home.
this is literally

Christians are a big group in america and Muslims fucked up on 9/11 and subsequent terror attack and by letting the jews capture them as an Allie.

One of the biggest proponents of civil rights in america was REVEREND dr martin Luther king

Thank you, compatriot.

No amount of bannings and computer issues shall get in the way of the Gadsden Namefag cause!



Do you think that israel's support of jihadis has any long term net benefit to them? Lets say for a second that the top brass of these jihadi groups is compromised by israel, I suppose that is possible. But what I don't think is possible is for the majority of the fighters to be willing israel shills. If in a hypothetical situation the jihadis did overcome assad, at some point they majority of the base would be looking to target israel after. That is unless you argue that israels backing of these groups isn't to remove assad/shia axis but instead to preoccupy both sunna and shia. And in that scenario you've got a situation where by israel would just as easily back shia/iran interests if the jihadis did manage to get on top.


yes. its basic D&C. theyre desroying arab states in the ME so that theyll be the only stable state left and will have no threats.

McCain who isnt even a blackops guy openly visited the IS leaders weeks before IS fomed

most of them dont even know whats really happening and what powers are involved. you still have people joining IS who have no idea that its practically over.
and there was a case of spilled sphagetti in the golan, where IS and other terrorist groups coincidentially* control almost all the territory near the israeli border and have repelled many syrian offensives.
pic related
what basically happened was that the cannonfodder IS guys found out their leaders were travelling on metings with IDF and MOSSAD officers every other day over the border so to cover the whle thing up someone* ordered these people killed.

the US, israel and turkey would get their excuse to fully invade syria. that was the whole point of creating IS; create a force that can take out the SAA but is also (on paper) your enemy so you can use it as a pretext for invasion

yet not a single terrorist group or IS unit atacked israel in over 7 years.
oh wait, one did, but they apologised to the IDF.
pic related

its both. destroy a powerful enemy state and prevent it from rising again by ensuing an ethnic conflict among arabs

in that case israel would back IS. they openly stated many times that theyd preffer IS over iran
pic related

i lost my sides

the middle east is full of regime dictators that are killing their own people
if they aren't freed by democracy soon, then they will try to take our freedom.
plus they are obviously borzwazee and not reactionary enough
if it isn't red it isn't not dead
think of the children!

hitler supported zionism.

is this low quality bait or something?

==E D G Y== but true

==test== test
test ==test==


Aren't they saying that because they currently see IS as less (or a nonexistent) threat in comparison to Iran/Iran backed groups? A situation could arise whereby once IS does establish reasonable control that they become a golem israel can't control. It's happened in the past when zionist backed agencies installed the current Iranian government that they're trying to remove now. The Islamic Republic of Iran acted as a counter-balance to almost complete Arab/Sunni dominance in the region at the time.
I just feel as if israel doesn't really have a side. Like you said in your post, it's just d&c. They'll back whatever side is weak just to ensure the conflict continues and their is no stability/unity in the region. Unity means israel basically no longer exists.

The Israeli situation is really psychotic when you think about it.
If they are headed towards a one state solution than they must decided between giving arabs rights or getting rid of democracy.
The arab birth rate would eventually outnumber the Jewish birthrate and then there is another check mark on the apartheid check list.
To install a two state solution they would have to kick out the settlers who are crazy and willing to fight back which could lead to a civil war.

If that nuclear deal with Iran fails and hardliners get voted back in then Iran and Israel will probably eventually go to war. And who knows if the nukes will be launched.

Israel is headed towards some kind of disaster.

oh and if they give arabs rights then its no longer a jewish state.

And it was exactly that: an ideal. The Russian Revolution's ideal was a stateless, classless, moneyless society of freedom and abundance — and it didn't exactly deliver.

Capitalism and industrialization are related but not synonymous. Capitalism had its start in the English countryside; it was rural before it was industrial.

You are right that proletarianization is a condition for capitalism to fully emerge, though rurality has nothing to do with it. But don't forget that this very system was built upon the expropriation of native land and the exploitation of slave labor — what allowed the yeoman to thrive was the brutalization of the supposedly lesser races.

The reason why industrialization was "nice and slow" in France was precisely because of mass immigration, which stalled rural exodus and allowed rural-urban complementarity to survive. France's immigration rate during most of the 19th century was actually higher than that of the US, if you can believe it.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Both of you.

Snek makes some bold claims about early US being "explicitly anti-capitalist and against industrialization", which is true only when it is applied to Southern slave-owning plantations, not "yoeman farmers" who did not have much of a say in politics.

On the other hand, you attempt to refute him (in an inherently flawed way, by claiming that something similar to your position happened somewhere else) by confusing final goal of Communist movement in general with the goals of Russian Revolution. However, Russian Revolution was neither fully Communist, nor did anyone actually intend to transition to full Communism immediately. Soviet set specific goals - goals that they had achieved. I.e. it was exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

And, I have compared the American Revolution to the Russian Revolution multiple times here.

Cottage industry was a thing, but ultimately it was land enclosure and the resulting exodus of farmers to the cities that created the excess labor force for capitalism in the UK.

Rurality has everything to do with it, especially in a country like the United States with a massive expanse of land. Whilst I know and actually approve of the expropriation of native land, most of the land conquered West was unsuited for slave plantation labor. In fact, the Republican Party's initial popularity under Lincoln's electoral campaign came from fears of Western farmers of plantation owners expanding slavery out west. The farmers of the west relied on themselves, their families, and later machines for agricultural labor, not African slaves. Most African slaves remained in the coastal South. And, who cares if a few thousand Indians, who already mostly died from smallpox and live inefficiently, had to move to a reservation to make room for millions of poor settlers who would be proles otherwise.

And, that is blatantly false. France's population growth has been slow and even stagnant during most of the 19th century, especially compared to Germany. If France took in a similar immigration rate as the United States did, the native population would've either had not bred at all or France's population should be astronomically higher that it was or even is today. So, it was the slow population growth that probably increased the worth of labor. France's nice and slow industrialization is also actually closer to the norm for continental Europe than Britain's industrialization model. Though, France did have a well-documented wave of immigration in the 1920s and 30s, perhaps in response to the losses of WW1. I haven't been able to find any distinct information on 19th century immigration aside from the slow population growth which suggests that you are wrong at least in the rate of immigration.

Yeoman farmers actually did have plenty of say in politics, in both the South and North. It was mostly indentured workers and slaves who lacked suffrage. The latter were liberated by the end of the American Revolution by Jeffersonian efforts, and the vast majority of the white population owned property during 1776. In fact, income equality was high compared to today.

Yeoman farmers also were behind many rebellions, had many of their own in government, and essentially were the third most powerful force in American politics, next to the mercantile elites and the planters. The planters felt no threat from the yeomanry specifically due to the excess land of the West, which prevented a situation where farmers would run out of land and thus rebel against the plantation owners like what happened during Bacon's Rebellion. The mercantile elite's attempts to subverting the yeomanry led to various rebellions happening, especially in Northern states where the political extremes between antifederalism and federalism were strongest.

As for the Russian Revolution, I would say that the anarchists and SRs were the Jeffersonians/Anti-federalists of that revolution, while the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were the Federalists. Kronstadt could be considered the Shay's Rebellion of Russia.

IS only functions because the US, israel, saudis and others need it.
IS could be eradicated by a dedicated israel-US led operation very fast, unlike an actual state like iran.
look at russia. they turned the tide of war with no more than a few dozen aircraft and a few hundred advisors. Before russia came in assad had a few months to live, and this means in coastal areas dominated by his supporters and with the bulk of his remaining forces.

zionists and americans were never behind the islamic revolution. they merely pressured the shah to adopt some economic and security policies which pushed the iranians over the edge, especially after the US killed their elected president and put shsh in power.

that makes no sense.
saudis were close US allies, as was baathist saddam. jordan also made peace with israel. egypt and syria were the only ones remotely hostile to the US in the 80s.other than that the US was making allies and puppets everywhere. you dont need to divide and conquer anything if you already have it.

thats right yeah

(me ayy)

could you politely take your american revolution topic to your own thread?

israel is only "agreeing" with the two-state solution and other jokes to get the UN off its back.
They have very strict racial immigration and citizenship laws.

well its suppost to fail.
iran keeps getting stronger even without the nukes. israel needs the US to take them out, and another WMD scandal is a good pretext

That's a simplistic definition in my opinion. I'd say ISIS were in some part allowed grow to the extent it did because of foreign interest. The core of ISIS's leadership are former still Al-Qaeda and Saddam Ba'thist after all. ISIS (in it's current or previous form) was initially anti-US Islamists spurred on by disposed Saddam loyalists. It's very similar to what's happening in Libya with Gaddafi loyalists (but with militias instead of Islamists). The conflict is far more nuanced than just two sides.

Meh, again just my opinion (as with everything) but by and large Russian support has been targeting anti-Assad rebels rather than ISIS. ISIS is actually a net benefit to Assad in this conflict and it's in his interest that they remain a presence, albeit a highly controlled and confined one, at least until he has total and complete control of Syria. Various accounts show that for much of the conflict (and only until fairly recently actually did it change) Assad and ISIS troops rarely clashed. They both caused more harm to anti-Assad rebels than each other.
And while I don't doubt that the US and isreal see a benefit to ISIS, they also know that even if they didn't any boots on the ground intervention, the type that would be substantial enough to defeat ISIS "fast" as you put it, would unavoidably mean getting into conflict with other rebel groups. That could prove a uniting factor between the various factions and also increase jihadi recruitment to a cause that would be a far easier sell (as apposed to the current Muslims vs Muslims conflict) and the influx would probably lead to a dilution of ISIS rhetoric that would overall potentially make them a more popular group (even a lead to a knew quasi group) and in turn more powerful. Leading to a long drawn out war that has serious potential to spill into israel.

Have to disagree with you on that. A number of reports, many official, show that the CIA, British and French intelligence (all in zionist pockets) all had active contact for a period with Khomeini and it was certainly nothing short of grooming.

It makes perfect sense when you remember that isreal is trying to enact the Yinon Plan. And the rise of a Shia power in the region to preoccupy Sunni interest fits in perfectly in that, even in the words of a number of zionist officials.
You're looking at the issue as government vs government and eliminating the populace all together. Regardless of how cushy Arab/Sunni governments are to israel, their people are still the most vehemently 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧anti semitic🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 in the world. It's easy to get governments to be your bitches, it far harder (if not impossible) to get citizens to do the same. Introduce a new "enemy" into the region and you suddenly split the cause and the focus. Suddenly it's not all Muslims or all Arabs uniting against israel, it's shia fighting sunni, it's kurds fighting arabs, it's secularism fighting islamism, it's Qatar fighting SA, it's the North of a country fighting the South. It's the entire point of the Yinon Plan.
And I'd point out that Saddam was always a wild card. At points in time yes he might have had a Ok relationship with the US but he was always against isreal. It's no surprise The US tried to undermine Saddam/Ba'thism in Iraq multiple times, they only played nice temporary.

bumping for the Nasserites

Bumping for a new renaissance


dont you mean america?