As a lifelong leftist I have always believed that there are two paths that lead to justice for the poor, the wronged and the downtrodden. One is the force of argument and the truth – the essential prerequisites for grassroots organization and mass mobilization. The other is armed struggle, but this would be doomed without organization and mass mobilization. In other words, without a persuasive argument backed by the truth, there is little prospect for salvation for the victims of oppression and injustice.
Over the years my experience with leftists has left me increasingly disenchanted with them – their ignorance and intellectual idleness (or lack of intellect altogether), their slogan-mongering and shallow, doctrinaire politics and, most disturbing of all, their disdain for the truth and their lack of respect for facts and for evidence.
A case in point is an article I came across recently by Jamal Kanj, a Palestinian author. Before I go any further, let me say that I am actually a fan of Mr Kanj and have a lot of respect for him. I am picking on his article only because it is the most recent symptom I have encountered of the problem I am talking about.
In the article, “Syria, Arab Spring or civil war” Mr Kanj says, among other things:
The Syrian opposition should take clue from the militarized conflict in Libya. Until NATO direct intervention, the armed rebellion failed badly in toppling Kaddafi. NATO interference brought both wanton destruction and lucrative business deals for Western companies to rebuild what their governments destroyed in the first place.
Now, I am no fan of NATO – a body which I believe should have been disbanded the moment the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Nor am I a champion of NATO’s key players – the US, Britain, Germany and France – who are pioneers and sustainers of international hypocrisy and injustice.
However, facts are facts and must never be covered up, no matter what we may feel about the parties concerned. In the case of the Libyan conflict, here are the facts:
Fact #1: Had it not been for NATO’s intervention, there is no doubt that Gaddafi would have committed mass murder in Benghazi and elsewhere where the people had risen up against his despotic, fascist rule. He promised to do so on state television, and on the day the French air force launched the first NATO strike on Saturday 19 March 2011 Gaddafi’s armoured forces and armed thugs entered the outskirts of Benghazi, killing and shooting at random as they advanced.
Fact #2: NATO strikes had brought no wanton destruction. The fact is that NATO action had been remarkably well targeted on Gaddafi’s military wherewithal – the tanks and Grad rocket launchers wreaking terror on the civilian population of Misrata and other towns struggling for their freedom. There was one big mistake, notably a hit on a building that resulted in 79 civilian deaths, and several smaller mistakes where rebels were bombed in error. In fact, on numerous occasions where Gaddafi’s thugs had regularly and randomly fired on civilian positions from tanks and missile launchers ensconced in residential areas, including next to hospitals and mosques, NATO took no action to avoid collateral damage, despite knowing the positions of Gaddafi’s thugs.
Fact #3: The “lucrative business deals for Western companies” after the downfall of the Gaddafi regime were not “to rebuild what their governments destroyed in the first place” but in fact were the same deals concluded by the Gaddafi regime and currently under review – there have been no new deals worthy of mention The fact is that all the civilian infrastructure destroyed during the eight-month Libyan conflict was destroyed by Gaddafi’s forces, not NATO (e.g. the oil installations in Brega and Ras Lanuf).
Mr Kanj, please don’t put yourself in the same camp as the ideologues and demagogues of the self-styled but utterly fake “leftists” and “anti-imperialists”. The truth must always come first, even if it temporarily deprives our enemies of the bad light they generally deserve.
Recent Comments