The disarmed left

10 min read Txema Garcia Paredes 0 comments

TXEMA GARCIA WALLS

We no longer live only in an era of ethical and principled degradation, but also in a painful era of ideological weakening. It seems as if the lights that for so long illuminated a left firm in its convictions and with a clear sense of the defence of dignity and justice have gone out.

It must be said loud and clear. The so-called left, in general and to very different degrees, seems to be increasingly falling into the trap set by rampant capitalism on a planetary level. It plays on its field and by its rules, those imposed by capitalism itself. And so, it is impossible to win. And it does so with a referee bought in that great stadium with little lights that they have built called “Democracy” through a parliamentary system based on the delegation of votes, on “behave yourself and stay at home” and “don’t bother me again for four years” when you can vote again so that everything remains practically the same.

The history of humanity has been full of struggles to achieve a more just society, a better world. And within these struggles, there are all the revolutionary processes or processes of profound social transformation that have been crossed by confrontations in which armed violence has been practiced by all the agents involved, both the powerful and dominant classes that, with the help of the State apparatus, exercise the exclusive monopoly on the use of force to continue maintaining their own privileges, as well as those who resist and combat the existing structural violence.

Or is there no structural and permanent violence today, even more than what we knew in past times? Isn't violence exercised by the transnationals that are above the states? And that of the military-industrial complex, and that of the energy oligopoly, and that of the laboratories, and that of the digital mega-companies that lead the cybernetic era...?

But it is not even necessary for these processes to be revolutionary struggles or social transformations for this structural armed aggression by the main powers and the most powerful groups to appear in a savage form. As of today, there are 56 active wars worldwide. The vast majority of them have as a background the greed to obtain the natural resources held by countries and peoples who either cannot defend themselves from this aggression, or their populations are used as cannon fodder to fight each other, while others take the profits.

So, what are we talking about? Well, first of all, something as basic as the fact that there is no political architecture or institution on this planet (the United Nations has already given ample proof of its irrelevance and incapacity) that is capable of channelling and resolving conflicts without resorting to violence. And, as a corollary to this situation, a question as basic as it is necessary and which is disappearing from the emancipatory horizon: Does the left have to reject the possibility of resorting to armed struggle when there is no other possibility of a peaceful solution?

And it must be said that the global left, in general, is giving up on the idea that “armed resistance” can be used as a form of defence, and even on “understanding” it, on pain of being accused of “collusion” with “terrorism”. And what is happening in Gaza is very illustrative in this regard.

Carlos Varea, professor at the Autonomous University of Madrid and a prominent member of the Committee of Solidarity with the Arab Cause (CSCA) and coordinator of CELSI (State Campaign for the Lifting of Sanctions on Iraq) in the 1990s and until 2004, believes that the regional and international panorama has changed greatly in the last two decades. “The problem in Palestine, in Gaza, is that there are certain points of reference for armed struggle that have changed the profile of traditional militancy and, perhaps, that is the reason why the left does not identify with certain points of reference, which are now predominantly Islamist currents. Beyond that, I also believe that there is another assessment linked to the absolutely disproportionate Israeli response to Hamas’s action in October, in which they set in motion this process of genocidal attack against Gaza that means that the consideration that the armed response will always have a response from Israel that is overwhelmingly devastating for the Palestinian population is not contemplated. I am not clear about Hamas’s actions in October, for me this organization is not a point of reference for political resistance, perhaps because I belong to another generation but, in any case, what cannot be eradicated from the debate is the right to armed resistance. Another question is to assess whether Israel’s response to Hamas’s attack was measured. And what I am fundamentally concerned about is not the right of the Palestinian people to resist, but the ability of organizations, in this case armed or political-military organizations like Hamas, to manage the military and genocidal onslaught that the population is suffering, that is, the management of the subsequent crisis. That is what concerns me, not questioning the right to armed resistance, but assessing whether the Palestinian armed organizations are capable of protecting their own population.”

Will the genocide in Gaza perhaps be a turning point that will determine in practice a surrender by the left on fundamental principles, such as the legitimate right to defence and armed resistance? “I believe that we should not give up because it is part of the anti-colonial struggle, this is something that is part of a legacy of colonial domination that is still in force. That is where we come from. It is always very comfortable to talk from the comfort of our own homes about what the Palestinians should or should not do, but the principle of the right to armed resistance is inviolable, in that sense it is recognized as legitimate by international organizations, including the United Nations itself. What happens is that the Palestinian people have tried many forms of military resistance, but also of a more peaceful nature, such as the Intifadas, an attempt to replace the traditional armed resistance that had failed, that had been defeated by popular mobilizations and really and now, what we find, seen from the outside, is that we are in a terrible dead end, because any military action, which is usually very symbolic, such as the launching of rockets that barely cause material damage, sometimes symbolic, then gets a very disproportionate response, which leaves no room for maneuver, especially if we compare it with the terrible actions that both the Israeli army and the settlers have been regularly committing against a defenseless Palestinian population.

For Varea, a good part of the organized left “They are making instrumental use of the Palestinian issue, of what is happening in Gaza. And they are using it as a brick that is thrown at each other's heads by different groups to claim or to take advantage of the suffering of the Palestinian people. There is a lot of sectarianism with this among political organisations, something that contrasts with the fact that the vast majority of the population in the Spanish State is pro-Palestinian and that, if they are encouraged to demonstrate under simple and direct slogans, they will do so. I insist, I think that the problem of the left, in general, is that they are making partisan use of this drama of the genocide in Gaza and that the population is not being mobilised. In Madrid, for example, different demonstrations have been called for on consecutive weekends and I continue to think that people are not mobilised by a specific slogan or by the small print of a statement but by what they are seeing on TV, which is so horrendous that it could lead to massive mobilisations. Look at London or the USA, which are giving a lesson in unitary calls...”.

Then there is the great hypocrisy that is experienced on a daily basis. While Ukraine has the right to defend itself against armed aggression from Russia, the Palestinian people, on the other hand, do not have the right to defend itself against Israeli aggression. Why? Are these not two very different yardsticks? In fact, if the Palestinian armed resistance does it, they are directly “terrorists.” But if the Israeli army does it, on the orders of its Zionist government, it is considered “legitimate defense.” “It is obvious. I, because of my personal and political tradition, am not at all pro-Russian, and much less in favour of Putin; quite the opposite. And I think that apart from our left, we can immediately see the influence of an old Stalinist Soviet imperialism that Putin inherited, and then there is also the alignment of some with Iran, which, for me, is not a reference point at all. But it is obvious that there are two yardsticks, without a doubt.

The past seems to have been erased in one fell swoop. Who resisted the onslaught of fascism in Europe during World War II? Weren't they militiamen with weapons in hand? Are we going to erase in one fell swoop everything that the struggles of militiamen, maquis, resistance fighters, guerrillas meant...?

The left is losing its historical role and everything indicates that it is accepting it. All in the name of “Democracy.” One of those “Democracies” that continue to sell (or buy) weapons to Israel or trade with that State so that it continues to perpetrate a holocaust against the Palestinian people, even on television.

The questions are simple but challenge us in multiple directions: Where is the right to defend oneself when you are being massacred? Who grants the titles of victims and victimizers? Do we allow the rules of the game in this new world order to be set by the powerful or the exploited? What is the situation then of the struggles of many peoples or sectors of the population that are absolutely overwhelmed by those who authoritarianly exercise the monopoly of force to confront legitimate claims and demands? What consequences will this ideological drift have, this abandonment of this reference to the need for legitimate defense against armed aggression?

Carlos Varea points out along these lines that “There are attempts at armed resistance in the West Bank that are not aligned with traditional Palestinian organisations, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas or the Islamists, and they are limited, but very interesting to follow. And all this at a time when social disorganization and levels of social aggression mean that the limits of survival for these people are becoming increasingly narrow, and their ability to respond or confront what is happening in the face of Israeli aggression is practically reduced to remaining a people in the sense of identifying themselves as Palestinians.”

With a totally inoperative United Nations, with international courts of justice with no capacity for effective action, with the main powers of the First World in favour of the Israeli aggressor, with Arab countries that have abandoned the Palestinian people beyond a certain self-serving political posturing... what does the world's left expect the Palestinians to do? Not defend themselves? Surrender? Allow themselves to be massacred? Stoically contemplate their own end?

"I believe that hope comes not from seeking political interlocutors in Palestine or elsewhere, but from regaining the awareness that it is the capacity of the population to resist, when the situation can be restored or at least normalized, that will give us a new reference point to support and show solidarity with them. And I also believe that on the left, as has happened in many other processes, we are guilty of a kind of lecturing the Palestinians on how to deal with the situation… I no longer have the capacity to evaluate it politically…”

By making so many concessions in practice, the global left is on the way to giving up not only on concepts but on fundamental principles. And this is the beginning of a total political and ideological defeat. It has swallowed the toad of a peace, the meaning of which is very different depending on who has the upper hand, that is, the military technology sufficient to crush the adversary.

All this is not only related to a problem that is reaching its peak now in that concentration camp in which the Palestinian population has been locked up in Gaza and the West Bank. No, it is something much more global. It has to do with an ideological disposition that, in the name of a supposed pacifism, has ended up disarming even the discourse of the world's own left. Perhaps we must begin to change the story of David and Goliath because we have condemned the former to total defenselessness.l.