Gaza’s Poisoned Water

This article follows an August 6 one discussing Palestinians Denied Access to Water. It explained how Israel exploits Palestinian water resources, using most of it, forcing them to find ways to get by. Water, of course, is essential to life, rights to it natural and usufructuary. Belonging to everyone as part of the commons, it must be used, not owned or abused, an essential truth Israel corrupts.

On August 5, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) published the latest in its “Narratives Under Siege” series, titled “There’s Something in the Water: The Poisoning of Life in the Gaza Strip.”

“THIS BEACH IS POLLUTED” signs dot Gaza City beaches, posing serious health hazards because of daily raw sewage dumped into the Mediterranean Sea through 16 discharge sites along the coast. Yet thousands fill them despite the dangers, including children, taking advantage of one of their few sources of respite — available, convenient, and free, but not safe.

For Gazans, the sea is part of their lives — to fish, gather with family, swim, and for children, play in the sun on hot days, a joy this writer recalls growing up on America’s Atlantic coast. Summers were always the best time. The memories remain.

“Without the sea there is no Gaza,” explains Abdel Haleem Abu Samra, Public Relations Officer of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights’ Khan Younis Branch. Being unsafe is especially unsettling — its state in some form since 1991, but especially under siege, prohibiting equipment, construction materials, and spare parts to build new wastewater treatment facilities and repair existing ones.

In addition, conditions are exacerbated by an acute fuel and electricity shortage, vital to run waste treatment cycles properly. As a result, about 20,000 cubic meters of raw sewage are dumped daily into the sea, according to Monther Shoblak, Director General of the Coastal Municipality Water Utility, and in some areas it’s up to four times that much — a shocking, completely avoidable situation.

Gaza’s once pristine shores are polluted, the grave implications clear — “the Gaza Strip is, quite literally, being poisoned,” affecting about 90% of its coastal aquifer, the essential source for residents. Yet it’s hazardous and undrinkable, given its high nitrate and chloride levels — six to seven times higher than World Health Organization’s (WHO) safe levels.

As director of Gaza’s water, Monther’s job is challenging, forcing him to improvise to make due, managing wastewater created by 1.5 million trapped people, 80% of them in refugee camps, living cramped in the world’s largest open-air prison, out of sight and mind to those outside it, except activists, friends, and supporters who care. Plagued also by inadequate infrastructure, creating hazards unimaginable in the West.

Monther compares Gaza’s facilities to an old car still in use despite lack of spare parts needed for upkeep. Eventually falling into disrepair, it pollutes heavily, relevant for Gaza where even adulterated gasoline is the normal input for cars.

Compounding things further, Gaza’s population is growing rapidly (about 3.6% annually), producing greater amounts of waste, current facilities only able to handle about 32,000 cubic meters a day, about half its needed capacity. As a result, the overage gets dumped, entirely or mostly untreated, much of it washing back onshore, polluting beaches, creating hazardous swimming conditions, and poisoning drinking water.

In northern Gaza’s Beit Lahia, deterioration is especially severe, one of its three facilities receiving over 25,000 cubic meters daily, double its operating capacity. Worse still, the facility has no access to the sea, so wastewater flows directly into the surrounding area, creating a 450 dunum sewage lake, untenable contamination, exacerbated in March 2007 when its embankment broke, killing five people by toxic flooding.

High nitrate levels are especially hazardous, Monther calling them “a silent killer” — colorless, odorless and tasteless, its continued intake reducing oxygen to vital tissues like the brain. Children and infants are greatly at risk, their developing organs unable to cope. Severe damage and at times death the result.

The longer-term consequences are worrisome, Sara Roy saying: “Nowhere else in the world has such a large number of people been exposed to such high levels of nitrates for such a long period of time. There is no precedent, and no studies to help us understand what happens to people over the course of years of nitrate poisoning.”

The harm is undeniable because the coastal aquifer along much of the Strip provides about 90% of its water. For Gazans like everyone, it’s life, nature’s gift, and essential. There’s no substitute, making it vital to conserve and keep safe, for drinking and Gaza’s agriculture, especially its citrus farms, deservedly famous, now threatened by toxic and dangerous pollution.

Only 10% of Gaza’s aquifer is safe, and without changes, Monther fears it’ll all be poisoned, making it hazardous for any purpose. A 2009 United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report warned that today’s damage “could take centuries to reverse.” Under siege, Gazans have no choice but to cope, pitting them against nature, never a fair fight when it’s hostile.

A Final Comment

A July 22 Electronic Intifada report headlined “Gaza’s strawberries spoil under siege,” explained:

“The northern Gaza Strip area of Beit Lahiya is famous for its agriculture,” an ideal environment for growing fruit under normal conditions, absent under siege. Besides polluted water, farmers like Abdulfattah al-Khateeb worry about his strawberries reaching West Bank, Israeli, and European markets, their destination for over 20 years.

Since 2007, however, closure cut him off from the rest of the world, leaving “tons of his strawberries… rot(ting) while waiting in vain at the Israeli border.” As a result, he fears his livelihood is being lost.

Before 1967, Gaza’s citrus was called “yellow gold,” renown for its quality. Under Israeli control, many orange groves were bulldozed, farmers turning instead to flowers and strawberries. They adapted, producing “the best strawberries in the world,” according to Abdulfattah, former head of Beit Lahiya’s Strawberry Farmers Society.

Now he and others are forced to abandon their crops because of export restrictions. “The effects have been disastrous,” farmers reporting a 40% drop in income, losing millions of dollars.

“The Israelis tell us how and what to plant, what to use to plant it, and where the plants we use must come from, (and) when we do what (they) want, they just create another problem,” he explains. Half of Gaza’s strawberry farmers have given up. The others are threatened, especially by Cast Lead’s destruction of nearly half of Gaza’s farmland. Relentlessly, Israel is destroying a way of life in Gaza, a little reported story vital to highlight and contest.

Stephen Lendman wrote How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Contact him at: lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM-1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening. Read other articles by Stephen.

42 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Maien said on August 14th, 2010 at 11:56am #

    Israel (European/American Immigrants) is not only destroying a way of life, it is destroying life, period. How many more of the world’s humans must recognise that the Israeli Occupiers are agents of death, destruction and theft, before the voices are loud enough to stop this Zionist nightmare. The few Israeli’s who have managed to maintain their humanity are outnumbered.

  2. shabnam said on August 14th, 2010 at 1:41pm #

    The main obstacle against WORLD PEACE is Zionism AND ITS SUPPORTERS including Trotskyite ‘left’.

    Unfortunately, many ‘progressive’ sites giving Zionists a platform to change Israel’s image and make it acceptable for the fools bring more ignorant people on board. Please review the following article by Brendan O’Neill to realize how this person is trying to bring sympathy for Zionism by holding ‘imperialism’ responsible for the CRIME OF ZIONISM. This article was published at ‘antiwar’ site.

    O’Neill writes:
    {Antiwar activists and thinkers – those who are concerned about the destructive impact of Western intervention around the world – must start challenging fashionable anti-Israel sentiment. Because today, such sentiment is increasingly being used to rehabilitate Western moral authority in the Middle East and on the international stage more broadly.}

    http://original.antiwar.com/brendan-oneill/2010/08/12/rethinking-the-antiwar-movements-israel-campaign/

    Israeli forces also are trying to partition Sudan, therefore, their forces in Sudan are pushing for a referendum for the coming January. This is a Zionist project for the region according to ODED YINON Strategy. Iraq Partition through invasion and creation of Kurdish Terrorists as Israel’s pawns was one of the zionist project. The Zionists have the same project for Iran, that’s why they are pushing for a war on Iran by the US. American people must destroy the Zionist project by telling everyone that THIS IS ISRAEL’S WAR NOT AMERICAN’S WAR. The Lobby and its extension want ‘regime change’ in Iran to be able to partition Iran where I know they will take it into their graves. This is a Zionist war to erect “greater Israel” in a region where they have NO CONNECTION WITH IT, to destroy Iran with more than 7000 years of proven history.
    The Zionists are pushing for Partition of Sudan through propaganda campaign, it was “child slavery” in Southern Sudan and “genocide” in Darfur which is nothing but HOAX.

    {Southern Sudan is eagerly awaiting the vote, which could turn the arid region into the world’s newest nation and split Africa’s largest country in two. A 2005 peace agreement that ended four decades of on-and-off war between Sudan’s north and south called for the referendum for southern Sudanese. But negotiations have barely begun and tensions are rising.}

    Al Bashir must destroy the Zionist forces in Sudan as soon as possible to prevent partition of his country, Sudan.

  3. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 1:45pm #

    > The main obstacle against WORLD PEACE is Zionism AND ITS SUPPORTERS including Trotskyite ‘left’.

    Whatever other faults one may find with the actual Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky, they certainly did not ever support Zionism.

  4. shabnam said on August 14th, 2010 at 2:01pm #

    >Whatever other faults one may find with the actual Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky, they certainly did not ever support Zionism.

    THIS IS YOUR OPINION. These organization magnify ‘imperialism’ to hide the crime of Zionism. We have much evidence, especially in the case of Iran. Many among this organization, like Israel, hold Islam as the main enemy and active in islamophobia industry.

  5. teafoe2 said on August 14th, 2010 at 3:13pm #

    shabnam, the so-called Fourth International splintered long ago. Any remnant still using that label is today totally insignificant, so denouncing it by name is beating a dead horse.

    But a wide range of writers and outfits claiming to be inspired by Trotsksy and/or his works ARE in existence, some of them wielding considerable influence in the US and the UK. (I think in other places too?)

    James Petras for one started as a Trotsky aficianado. So did the late Sam Marcy, who laid the foundation for the ANSWER Coalition and both the PSL and the Workers World parties which form ANSWER’s backbone.

    A Trotsky-inspired outfit known as the ISO provides an important “cadre” core to the Green Party; I think they are probably responsible in large part for weaknesses in Green stances re the I/P and ME issues. But it’s been a while since I was privy to any inside info of GP internal workings.

    But that said, I disagree strongly when you assert that all criticism of Imperialism is nothing but a tactic to divert attention from Zionism. Zionism is actually itself an instance of imperialism. It would have been unimaginable except for the existence of capitalist colonialism.

  6. teafoe2 said on August 14th, 2010 at 3:23pm #

    Shabnam, I finally got around to opening the O’Neill link you provided. Thank you.

    The fact that Raimundo et al found O’Neil’s pile of zionist propaganda fit to print shows me that my earlier warnings not to trust these Libertarians were well founded. But I didn’t expect Raimundo to stoop this low this fast.

    O’Neil’s screed needs to be taken apart piece by piece and thoroughly trashed. I credit you for bringing it to our attention and for your effort to rebut it, but I find that most of your arguments miss the mark. Trotsky, whether you admire him or not, is not the issue here.

  7. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 3:31pm #

    > THIS IS YOUR OPINION.

    No, it’s a historical fact.

    > These organization

    The Fourth International pretty well disintegrated several decades ago. Since you haven’t named any organization when using the phrase “These organization” it’s not at all clear who you’re referring to by “Trotskyite.” That sounds more like the way that the Moscow show trials used to label defendants as “Trotskyite” simply as a smear, or the way the Anti-Defamation League uses the term “antisemite” for branding opponents. Surely by “Trotskyite” you can’t mean United For Peace & Justice, which is a derivative of the Stalinist Communist Party USA?

  8. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 3:35pm #

    > A Trotsky-inspired outfit known as the ISO

    Actually, the ISO is better characterized as “Cliffite” since it was Tony Cliff who dumped Trotsky’s analysis of the Soviet Union as a “degenerated workers state” and recharacterized is as “state capitalist.” Tony Cliff was expelled from the Fourth International over this, and of course the Fourth International went downhill a long time ago too.

  9. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 3:39pm #

    > I credit you for bringing it to our attention and for your effort to rebut it, but I find that most of your arguments miss the mark.

    I’ve noted the same thing when this fellow sometimes interjects ramblings about the CFR. CFR, whether you like them or not, was not this Iraq war. JINSA was, but CFR was not. Nor is there any evidence of the Bilderberg Goup or the Trilateral Commission every having pushed for war in Iraq. You don’t have to like these people to see that they were not the main movers in the Iraq war.

  10. teafoe2 said on August 14th, 2010 at 4:48pm #

    Patrick,
    UFPJ’s main parent org was DSA, “Democratic Socialists of America”, acting through their front group PDA, “Progressive Democrats of America”. The CPUSA mainly went along for the ride, supplying foot troops, but the main organizers & spokeses were usually PDA. DSA honcho & Vatican operative Duane Campbell was a key architect.
    To my knowledge the CP has not yet sunk to the level of the Second International DSA which openly boasts of its “fraternal relations” with the Histadrut. Guess it doesn’t make much difference since both outfits compete to see who can gush the hardest over Obummer.

  11. teafoe2 said on August 14th, 2010 at 4:58pm #

    Also Patrick, the CPUSA ceased to be “Stalinist” long long ago, if you mean by that epithet support for policies and analyses associated with Uncle Joe prior to the Khruschev era and the Sino-Soviet Split.

    Since Khruschev’s speech denouncing Stalin, it has been mainly the Maoist trends who have made use of Stalin-era “theory” and analysis. For a couple decades now, the CP has become little but “Social Democracy-lite”, tailing after the DSA and CC-DS most of the time, acting as the slightly-farther-to-the-left Left Fringe of the Dumbocrat Party and the AFL-CIA.

  12. Maien said on August 14th, 2010 at 5:03pm #

    A question, Teafoe2. You said, “It would have been unimaginable except for the existence of capitalist colonialism.” And because Islam marches to a different drummer regarding finance, wouldn’t a capitalist cloning, oops colonising regime have a natural enemy with Islam?

    Also, PatrickSMcNally regarding the possible involvement of the Bilderberg Group or the TriLateral Commission influencing the Iraq War: Perhaps I am mistaken, but isn’t it kind of moot whether they pushed for this particular war. My understanding is that the whole bunch hold the same end goals and desires and methodology. Perhaps they do not always work as a single team. I would appreciate being directed to a site/ writer/information. thx in advance.

  13. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 5:09pm #

    > Since Khruschev’s speech denouncing Stalin, it has been mainly the Maoist trends who have made use of Stalin-era “theory” and analysis.

    Yes, that is pretty much correct, although one might also distinguish Hoxhaist trends in there. I was slightly facetious in the use of the term “Stalinist” after the absurd way that “Trotskyite” was tossed about.

  14. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 5:18pm #

    > My understanding is that the whole bunch hold the same end goals and desires and methodology.

    The JINSA/AIPAC/WINEP faction of the ruling class favors a distinctively parochial pro-Israel stance, even at the cost of creating wider instabilities. The Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction tends to lean towards favoring a more even-handed stance on Arab/Israel/Islamic/Jew issues, as they regard this as something which generates instabilities that are not beneficial.

    > I would appreciate being directed to a site/ writer/information.

    Most information is just scattered around, but I thought that this piece did a reasonable job of summarizing a lot of the facts:

    http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/third_section/israel_lobby.html

  15. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 5:28pm #

    > And because Islam marches to a different drummer regarding finance, wouldn’t a capitalist cloning, oops colonising regime have a natural enemy with Islam?

    Not really. During the 1950s the Iraqi Communist Party was huge. There were also quite a few other strong Communist parties in the region in places such as Iran. The CIA and related agencies deliberately worked for several decades to build Islamic fundamentalism as a Right-wing counter-force in the Mideast. It was only after the Cold War ended that political realignments occurred which caused a falling out. Even with such a realignment, the Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction of the US ruling class would very likely seek to better coopt and manipulate certain segments of Islamic forces if they had fuller command of the policy-making ship. It is the JINSA/AIPAC/WINEP faction which prevents such a policy from being effectively developed.

  16. teafoe2 said on August 14th, 2010 at 5:55pm #

    Patrick, the link you posted, http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/third_section/israel_lobby.html
    contained a pile of information I hadn’t come across before. Especially interesting were the details about David Rockefeller’s differences with “the Lobby” et al.

    I’ll have to check this Martin Frost out further, see what’s on his mind now…?

  17. teafoe2 said on August 14th, 2010 at 5:59pm #

    to expand a bit on Patrick’s point: “> And because Islam marches to a different drummer regarding finance, wouldn’t a capitalist cloning, oops colonising regime have a natural enemy with Islam?”

    Please take note of the longstanding US sponsorship of the vicious Wahabi regime in “Saudi” Arabia. One good source on this tight relationship is “Ropes of Sand” by Bill Eveland.

  18. shabnam said on August 14th, 2010 at 6:58pm #

    {Zionism is actually itself an instance of imperialism.}
    Teafoe2

    thank you for your post. However, I should tell you that I used to say the same thing but now I am not sure anymore. Zionist project is not due to imperialism. These ‘ism’ have their own interests but the final goal, ‘The World Government’, WORLD DOMINATION, is in the interest of both and against the interest of the REST of us.

    The reason behind my sentence: “The main obstacle against WORLD PEACE is Zionism AND ITS SUPPORTERS including Trotskyite ‘left’.” is that I mainly look at the Iranian ‘left’ and to some extend American ‘left’ who are repeating the Zionist propaganda against Iran.
    Iranian ‘left’, before the revolution, were mainly ‘Stalinist’. First, they were organized in Todeh party, close to the Soviet Union but later, after MI6/CIA coup against Mossadeq in 1953, they were crushed and went underground.
    The left re organized itself under arm struggle and were formed in 1960s, mainly by University students, called themselves Marxist/Leninist and few were Islamists.
    After the revolution, however, majority of the political groups adopted Trotsky to emulate. I should say that Iranian political groups did not come to this kind of decision by active participation in debate, rather, were greatly influenced by the outside forces because Iran is a targeted country for both US, Israel and EU.

    After the revolution, the Iranian society, especially the youth, were bombarded with new books in western philosophy which supported neoliberal economic arrangement.
    So, today, the most active Iranian ‘leftist’ groups are TROYSIST, like HOPI, The workers-Communist party of Iran and other groups. The workers-Communist party is extremely reactionary and according to other ‘leftist’ group are in the pocket of Israel and US. They are active in X-Muslim and secularist organizations where cooperation with Islamophia industry have and are working with individuals like Bernard Henry Levy who was pro war against Iraq and now Iran for the interest of the Zionist tribe, Israel.
    Another one, is HOPI, also Trotskyite group where have similar position and like, Louis Proyect, Campaign for peace and Democracy, Trotskyite, cleverly using ‘imperialism’ to cover their shortcoming for Zionism. These organizations with a phony slogan NEITHER IMPERIALIST WAR, NOR THEOCRACY, are helping Zionism and imperialism. Their main target, like Israel, is Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian government.
    Edward Herman and David Petersen wrote an article and attack Campaign for peace and democracy because they found their activities mainly benefited imperialism and Zionism.

    HOPI and majority of Trotysist organizations are very SENSITIVE TO ‘ANTI-SEMITIC’ manifestation among groups and organizations, where, to me, is BS. Please look at the following lines made by HOPI member that is attacking SWP for not being strongly against ISLAM:

    {Hopi’s current secretary Yassamine Mather wrote in Weekly Worker in February 2007 that StWC/SWP had “deliberately watered down the politics of the movement – to the extent of avoiding any critique of political Islam… and taking up ‘Islamo-friendly’ slogans and positions.” She singled out for attack the slogan, “We are all Hezbollah now” used in the 2006 demonstrations against Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, when Hezbollah led the resistance, and claimed that the SWP had dropped its own principles and slogans in the antiwar movement.
    It is certainly true that the Campaign Iran speaker at the November 2007 Stop the War conference (and at previous StWC meetings) went out of her way to excuse the crimes of the Iranian regime, claiming it was a democracy, downplaying its anti-Semitism and so on, with the SWP uncritically supporting many of these arguments.}

    Can you see HOPI treats Ahmadinejad’s statement as anti-Semitic, EXACTLY like Zionists do? They were also disturbed to see the British Communists supported human rights of Hezbollah when Hezbollah was attacked by Israel in 2006. These groups view Hamas and Hezbollah, like Zionists , as ‘terrorists’.
    Moshe Machover active in HOPI believes the same thing meaning “Zionism is a colonial project” which is supported by the majority of HOPI’s members. Gilad Atzmon, on the other hand rejects this conclusion and in an article “Tribal Marxism for Dummies” writes:

    {Zionism as a colonialist expansionist project. The reasoning behind such a lame intellectual spin is obvious. As long as Zionism is conveyed as a colonial project, Jews, as a people, should be seen as ordinary people. They are no different from the French and the English, they just happen to run their deadly colonial project in a different time. However, as much as Machover is desperate to divert the attention away from the Jewish question, Jewish tribal politics and the Jewish identity, his entire premise can be demolished in a one simple move. If Israel is a ‘settler state’ as he says, one may wonder, what exactly is its ‘motherland? In British and French colonial eras, the settler states maintained a very apparent tie with their ‘motherland’. In some cases in history, the settler state broke from its motherland. Such an event is a rather noticeable one. The Boston Tea Party may ring a bell. However, as far as we are aware, there is no ‘Jewish motherland’ that is intrinsically linked to the alleged ‘Jewish settler state’. The ‘Jewish people’ are largely associated with the Jewish state, and yet the ‘Jewish people’ is not exactly a ‘material’ autonomous sovereign entity. The lack of material Jewish motherland leads to the immediate collapse of Machover’s colonial argument.}

    “Shiraz Socialis” Trotskyst group attacked Atzmon and like other Trotskists, Tony Greenstein, rejects Atzmon as ‘Anti-semite’.

    http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/socialist-worker-admits-it-was-wrong-on-atzmon/

  19. shabnam said on August 14th, 2010 at 7:11pm #

    < Since you haven’t named any organization when using the phrase “These organization” it’s not at all clear who you’re referring to by “Trotskyite.”

    You are right. I should have mentioned which organizations I have in mind. I have already explained it in my earlier post. I do not paint all Trotskyst organizations with the same brush.

  20. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 7:17pm #

    > So, today, the most active Iranian ‘leftist’ groups are TROYSIST, like HOPI, The workers-Communist party of Iran

    Well there’s one falsehood already. The Workers-Communist Party of Iran is not Trotskyist. We can go right to the homepage and began reading about the founder:

    http://www.m-hekmat.com/biographyEn.html

    —–
    The life of Mansoor Hekmat (Zhoobin Razani), the great Marxist thinker and leader of the Worker- communist Party and worker-communist movement, was not separate from the history of this movement and party in any of its moments or ups and downs. This is both a biography and, at the same time, a history of Revolutionary Marxism and worker-communism in Iran…

    Young Zhoobin’s profound and uncompromising humanism and love for freedom blended with Marx’s radical critique of capitalism. Thus ‘Mansoor Hekmat’ and Mansoor Hekmat’s Marxism were born. This Marxism had no kinship with the existing Marxism. Russian and Chinese Communism, the guerrilla warfare movement, Social Democracy and Trotskyism were all themselves subject of criticism by Mansoor Hekmat’s communism. In contrast to these distorted accounts of Marxism, he began directly from Marx, and brought back to Marxism its humanism and radicalism…

    His critique of Populist Socialism demolished not only the theoretical system of its international poles, i.e. Russian communism, Chinese communism, and guerrilla warfare-ism, but also targeted, as far as it positively hinged on Marx’s critique of capitalism and stressed socialism, tendencies such as Trotskyism and Social Democracy that were not represented in Iran.
    —–

    Whatever one wishes to make of either Hekmat or Trotsky, Hekmat was never a Trotskyist and neither was the party he formed. That’s just used as a slur by political opponents.

  21. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 7:27pm #

    > Another one, is HOPI

    What exactly does that stand for? I’m familiar with the Hands Off the People of Iran movement which is not Trotskyist but also probably not what you had in mind. The HOPI I’m familiar with is just a general coalition and not particularly identifiable with specific ideas as “Trotskyism” or any rival set of theories. It’s just a general antiwar coalition.

  22. teafoe2 said on August 14th, 2010 at 7:36pm #

    Thank you Shabnam, your post is very informative.

    I googled up HOPI and read a couple articles about their expulsion from the “StWC”, Stop the War Coalition and the AGM, Annual General Mtg. Very interesting, but this is all about the UK and Eire scene, completely terra incognita to me here in Northern California.

    One point: I vividly remember the Tudeh Party’s General Secretary being shown speaking on TV shortly after the takeover of the US embassy, and then some weeks or months later after extended torture and “interrogation” by the followers of the Ayatollah. He went from presenting an impression of a strong, not bad looking and somewhat magnetic individual to looking like a basket case, a totally broken human animal barely able to hold his head at halfmast.

    This is not meant as support or opposition to Tudeh or the Gen Sec’s political stance, just something I observed which made a great impression on me.

  23. teafoe2 said on August 14th, 2010 at 7:46pm #

    Re HOPI being “Trotskyist”, didn’t see any indication of that on any of the sites I visited. But didn’t see anything to the contrary either. ??

    I will say this: from what I saw it looked to me like HOPI was a lousy outfit, one supportive of US/Izzy efforts to destabilize Iran, aiming to help pull off another “color revolution”.

    I myself believe in Separation of Church and State as a general principle, but the Iranians and other Muslim peoples have the right to any form of government they decide on, without US/Isreali dictation or covert activities. I wouldn’t touch this HOPI with a ten foot Lithuanian.

  24. shabnam said on August 14th, 2010 at 7:46pm #

    Patrick:

    By HOPI, I mean Hands off the people of Iran. They are Trotskist.

    >Hekmat was never a Trotskyist and neither was the party he formed.

    I thought and still think Communist-workers party is a trotskist group but now I am confused and I should some research to make it clear.

    Mansoor Hekmat, the founder, is dead and the organization has been split. They have close relations with Kurdish groups who are close to Israel and are considered zionist pawns.

    Please look at the following link which is about ‘THIRD CAMP’ a Trotskyist group. On the margin to the right under “GROUP” you see the name of this party, Worker-Communist Party of Iran is headed by HAMID TAQAVEE. Hekmat is dead.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_camp

    I have to do more research.

  25. shabnam said on August 14th, 2010 at 7:59pm #

    Patrick:

    I think worker-communist party of Iran is Trotskyist, otherwise why their name is next to Workers’ Liberty?

  26. teafoe2 said on August 14th, 2010 at 8:01pm #

    Shabnam, if you can please provide documentation of your claim that HOPI “is Trotskyist”?

    Disclaimer: I am not and have never been a member of any Trotskyist organization. I have never been particularly attracted to Trotsky or his theories, so am not equipped to discuss him or them in any depth. I HAVE read quite a bit of Marxist theory written by various British Marxists. Also I’ve found the writings of CLR James very interesting, who I think was or started as a Trotskyist.

    It seems to me theoretically possible that some Trotskyist groups would be capable of making a contribution to the overall anti-ZioImperialism struggle, but so far I haven’t come across any that I’d vouch for. I’m inclined to go along with the judgment of my own hero, Frida Kahlo:)

  27. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 8:02pm #

    > Re HOPI being “Trotskyist”, didn’t see any indication of that on any of the sites I visited. But didn’t see anything to the contrary either. ??

    HOPI is a coalition of different ggroups and as such it not Trotskyist, Stalinist anarchist Maoist or anything else. It is just an antiwar caolition.

    > By HOPI, I mean Hands off the people of Iran. They are Trotskist.

    No, they are not. A coalition of different competing groups such as HOPI does not have a precise enough ideological identity to called “Trotskyist,” “fascist” or anything else. That doesn’t mean they’re good for anything. But they don’t have such a precise political coloring as “Trotskyist.”

    > Please look at the following link which is about ‘THIRD CAMP’ a Trotskyist group.

    I agree that you are confused. “Third Camp” was not a group but a concept which Max Shachtman developed when Trotsky evicted him from the Socialist Workers Party. Trotsky had counseled the members of the Fourth International that they must maintain a stance of support for military victory by the Soviet Union in the event of war. Shachtman rejected this idea and formulated what he called the “Third Camp” thesis which argued that in the event of the USSR being drawn into war his Third Camp would not give any approval to a Soviet military victory. For this, Trotsky ordered that Shachtman be booted out of the SWP-USA. Third Camp is not a party, it is a concept which Trotsky insisted party members should be expelled for holding to.

  28. teafoe2 said on August 14th, 2010 at 8:04pm #

    Oh yes, Shabnam, re your mention of Louis Proyect: I’d be very interested in learning more about where this erudite Marxist blogger/listkeeper (Marxmail.org) fits into all this. I ran into some “cybergremlins” when I tried to visit his site the other day. ??

  29. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 8:09pm #

    > I think worker-communist party of Iran is Trotskyist, otherwise why their name is next to Workers’ Liberty?

    “Next to” on where or what? Lots of types of political coalitions form which will result in multiple names appearing next to each other. That doesn’t in the least bit mean that different groups listed in such a way subscribe to a common ideology in any detail. Unless you can identify where you saw names listed together it’s impossible to answer.

  30. Maien said on August 14th, 2010 at 8:13pm #

    thx for the info … everyone. Much is familiar and the new details are interesting. I do agree with the last paragraph in the martin frost article.

  31. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 8:36pm #

    > I think worker-communist party of Iran is Trotskyist, otherwise why their name is next to Workers’ Liberty?

    I probably should have added that Workers’ Liberty is more accurately described as “Shachtmanite” (insofar as the term has any meaning) rather than “Trotskyist.” That may even account for the Worker-Communist Party appearing somewhere in a coalition listing with them. After being expelled from the Fourth International by Trotsky in 1940, Shachtman went through a process of evolution which culmiated in his becoming just another Social Democrat in 1958. But for the early years after his expulsion he tried to be more distinct and this was the time when he maintained his Third Camp theory. That was pretty well abandoned after 1958 in favor of normal Cold War Social Democratic politics. But the Workers’ Liberty is a group that enthusiastically maintains support for the Third Camp theory, which was what motivated Trotsky to expel Shachtman in the first place. Given that it isn’t hard to imagine the Worker-Communist Party and Workers’ Liberty ending up in a common listing of groups which share some points of agreement.

  32. shabnam said on August 14th, 2010 at 9:02pm #

    Patrick

    The key person in HOPI is an Iranian by the name of Yassamine Mather (Chair). According to her biography:

    Yassamine Mather is an Iranian socialist in exile in Scotland. Her political activities on the Iranian Left started in the 1980s in Tehran and later in Kurdistan. In exile, she has been a member of the coordinating committee of Workers Left Unity Iran. She is a member of the Centre for Socialist Theory and Movements (Glasgow University) and the deputy editor of the journal Critique. Recently she has been active in the Hands Off the People of Iran campaign (Hopi) and a member of the Faslane academic blockade.

    The Journal Critique:

    Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory is an independent academic Marxist journal and publication of the Centre for the Study of Socialist Theory and Movements at the University of Glasgow. The journal was inaugurated in May 1973 by South African émigré and founding editor Professor Hillel H. Ticktin (b. 1937) as Critique: Journal of Marxist Theory and Soviet Studies. Hillel was designated Emeritus Professor of Marxist Studies at the University of Glasgow in 2002. He has held the editorship of Critique for thirty-four years.
    Originating as an anti-Stalinist Soviet Studies journal, with the editor accepting the analysis of Leon Trotsky as a corrective to the Stalinist distortion of Marxism, the initial aim of Critique was to analyze the empirical reality of Stalinism, while rejecting the empiricist method, in order to discover the objective laws of motion of Stalinism. The journal accepted Trotsky’s 1936 prognosis that the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin’s program of socialism in one country would fail and that the capitalist market system would be restored.

    These people call themselves SOCIALIST but apparently Mather is very much associated with groups who have accepted Trotsky’s ideas.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_(Journal_of_Socialist_Theory)

  33. shabnam said on August 14th, 2010 at 9:05pm #

    Workers’ Liberty is a small Trotskyist group in Australia founded in 1980. Closely aligned with the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty in Britain, it publishes a paper, also called Workers’ Liberty.

    The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), also known as Workers’ Liberty, is a Trotskyist group in Britain. The group has a complex history but has always been identified with the theorist Sean Matgamna. The AWL publishes the newspaper Solidarity.

  34. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 9:52pm #

    > The key person in HOPI is an Iranian by the name of Yassamine Mather (Chair).

    In a general coalitionist group, anyone could be the chair. HOPI is not a political party built around a specific theory by anyone, whether Leon Trotsky or whoever. It is a coalition which is devoted to some brand of antiwar politics (for better or worse), and no more than that. If you don’t understand that point then it’s a sign that you’re just ideologically immersed in your own porivate world.

  35. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 9:56pm #

    > Workers’ Liberty is a small Trotskyist group

    They are more accurately characterized as a Shachtmanite group, as I mentioned above. There’s a reason why Shachtman was evicted from the Socialist Workers Party by Leon Trotsky.

  36. shabnam said on August 14th, 2010 at 10:02pm #

    You can believe whatever you want!!!

  37. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 10:06pm #

    > Originating as an anti-Stalinist Soviet Studies journal, with the editor accepting the analysis of Leon Trotsky as a corrective to the Stalinist distortion of Marxism, the initial aim of Critique was to analyze the empirical reality of Stalinism,

    You don’t even use Wiki-quotes honestly. Just following what the Wiki page says they tell us “Originating … the initial aim …” Such phrases usually are meant to imply that this is not the case today. Sure enough the Wiki page goes on to tell us that since 1991:

    “Critique has become a more general journal of socialist theory whose eclectic articles on political economy…”

    This was why I felt motivated before to make the slightly facetious usage of the term “Stalinist” when describing the Communist Party USA. Although it doesn’t really make much sense to call them that today, there certainly is a much better parallel between Earl Browder’s playing up to Roosevelt and the modern-day CPUSA playing to Obama. I’d say that the CPUSA still today has a closer resemblance to the old “Stalinist” party of the 1930s than Critique does to Trotsky.

  38. PatrickSMcNally said on August 14th, 2010 at 10:08pm #

    > You can believe whatever you want!!!

    It’s just a matter of reading their page and seeing that they are avowed promoters of Shachtman’s ideas from 1940-58.

  39. shabnam said on August 14th, 2010 at 10:18pm #

    >You don’t even use Wiki-quotes honestly.

    The dishonest one is YOU. You, apparently very much anti Stalinist, are trying to connect everything and any one with something that you told is evil in your fu*king capitalist system where to many, Trotsky and Stalin are BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.
    Hillel H. Ticktin IS a JEW and he very much, like you, is Anti Stalin. I have given you the link to click on it and read the entire page. This has nothing to do with dishonesty, rather is everything to do with your arrogance not wanting to click on the link.

  40. PatrickSMcNally said on August 15th, 2010 at 4:03am #

    > You, apparently very much anti Stalinist

    That must depend upon the context, really. There have been many false or exaggerated charges made over the decades against either the Marxism in general, the Soviet Union a bit more specifically, or sometimes very specifically against Stalin personally. At the same time there are many valid critical assessments which can and need to be made by any Left-wing of the future when assessing all of the different competing factions which existed on the Left. This includes not only the split between Stalin and Trotsky but also the multiple splits between groups which at one time started out as “Stalinist” or the even more diverse chain of competing groups which at one time began as “Trotskyist.”

    However from the beginning since I’ve first run across some of your posts here you’ve carried on with such bizarre over-generalities that whatever point might exist is rendered meaningless.

    >Trotsky and Stalin are BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.

    You would be more precise if you said that Trotsky and Stalin probably had more in common with each other than either of them would have with 99.99% of what passes for the “Left” today, but that’s a different issue. Your statement is simply too general to mean much either way. It can only have some meaning in a definite context with reference to specifics. Certainly the reason why Trotsky kicked Shachtman out was because he did not share the Latter’sbrand of Stalinophobia. But saying they were “two sides of the same coin” means nothing apart from such a specific context.

  41. shabnam said on August 15th, 2010 at 12:58pm #

    Workers Powers’ (Trotskyism ideology) views on HOPI regarding its main slogan:
    **No to imperialist war, Nor to theocracy regime**

    Hopi now includes Permanent Revolution. Unlike the Weekly Worker, it is not third campist, but has a revolutionary defeatist position on imperialist wars. Permanent Revolution intervened into the founding conference and improved some of the founding statement’s formulations.

    Members of Permanent Revolution have argued that Hopi is not third campist, by pointing to its principled positions on the immediate withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq, and then contrasting this to AWL’s refusal to raise this demand. But in truth the AWL’s refusal to call for the withdrawal of troops in Iraq – the logical development of third campism – does not make Hopi’s founding declaration in any way inconsistent with third campist assumptions.

    http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=139,1609,0,0,1,0

  42. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 6:38pm #

    Maien, just a note of thanks for earlier kind words, I do appreciate all positive feedback, in fact I treasure it.

    Shabnam,

    You seem to me to be making a serious attempt to understand the situation. I think with more experience you’ll be able to avoid some of the shaky ground you seem to venture onto in some of your posts. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. However.

    I think you misunderstood what I was driving at when you said: “Zionist project is not due to imperialism.”

    I didn’t mean to imply that the Zionist enterprise is simply another project sponsored and controlled by any “Imperialist Headquarters”, in the US or previously in the UK.

    Yes, the Zionist Power Configuration in the US and other sites of Jewish population concentration is an entity with its own policymaking process. They are not and have never been simply an extension of pre-existing Imperialist or capitalist power.

    But Organized Zionism as embodied in the WZO and the Basel Conference resolutions could never have emerged in a Feudal or other non-capitalist context. Zionist ideology owes an enormous debt to the European colonialist ideology prevailing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, in particular to the ideas of the German Kaiser’s righthand man Otto Von Bismarck whose slogan “Blut und Boden”, blood and soil, resonated with both the ideologists of Zionism and of Naziism.

    Herzl and accomplices sought support and got it, if less abundantly than hoped, from wealthy European capitalists & bankers, most of Jewish background like the Red Shields, I mean Rothschilds, but Christian moneybags were also approached and in some instances found welcoming.

    But it was only with the success of the “Lawrence of Arabia” swindle and Allenby’s entrance into Al Kuds that Zionism could coax, wheedle, apply pressure and eventually obtain the Balfour Declaration. The League of Nations “Mandate” sealed the deal, and it’s been all downhill from there.

    The “League of Nations” was of course, like its lineal descendant the “UN”, a committee for the handling of affairs of joint concern by the leading colonialist powers of the day.