Breaking Down Orientalist Views of Politics

Last October, I was talking with friends about the situation. Week after week, it became clear to me: they didn’t care about defending Palestine, or standing with oppressed people, or fighting against colonialism. It was only about fighting Israel, at any cost. I had a conversation with a Palestinian friend about why, as an Iranian, I opposed people like Qassem Soleimani. His argument, while his family was being bombed by the Zionist army, was that Soleimani was fighting Israel. I didn’t have a problem with that fact.

My problem was: what kind of fight is this? And second, what are they doing at home? My answer was simple: “They’re fighting a monster, yes, but they’re monsters too.” After that, we stood side by side in protests, until a group of Greeks and other Westerners showed up. They claimed to support the weapon of resistance, Hamas and other Jihadist and their violence ruined everything. Our friendship didn’t survive that.

Here’s the thing: in the West, they don’t like to separate political movements from one another. They lump us all together, ignoring cultural and political differences to fit their fantasies. This Orientalist way of thinking wants to put everyone into a single box. And anyone who steps outside that box? You’re a traitor. You’re a sellout. They refuse to understand that political Islam has its own agenda and its own political goals. And some of us oppose that!

Political Islam didn’t rise up for Palestine. People like Qassem Soleimani and Yahya Sinwar are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting for Islamic rule, against anything they call “infidels.” Pay attention to the words of Senwar and Soleimani. They simply say that they are ready to die early and meet their God! Their goal was not life and peace! The truth is, for them, the Israel-Palestine conflict was just an excuse to unite their fantasy of the Islamic world. These people came up in a specific time, during a specific generation, and they turned political Islam into this organized mafia monster. And for almost half a century, this monster has been choking out any real fight for freedom, smothering every attempt at progress.

But no, this fight with Israel end when they stop occupation and gives Palestinians their rights. And we support that, but not with the agenda of Islamist! The fact that the warmongering propaganda of fascism in Israel, the pro-West monarchists, and the Mujahideen talk about their desire to target officials of the Islamic regime in Iran, and eagerly wait for the bombing of Iran, only points to the reality that their idea and perspectives are based on something that will never bring peace to our world!

As far as its up to us, In Iran, we go on with a different plan. We organize labor movements. We develop the feminist movement. We bring activists from different sides together and talk about secularism. We talk and work with anti-occupation activists, and we speak out against the far-right and the religious right-wing in Israel just as much as we fight political Islam. We stand with Jewish anti-Zionist movements. We speak against the right-wing across the Middle East. These are all the matters that political Islam and Zionism never allowed to grow in the name of war and security.

We have a duty to fight the monster of political Islam. And we will.

→ The short URL: https://firenexttime.net/4gz9

Discover more from The Fire Next Time

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

Comments

6 responses to “Breaking Down Orientalist Views of Politics”

  1. peter bottomley

    It will never stop, no matter what we try. I\’m not interested and am glad the west back Israel, after ww2 UK, USSR and USA sent them there.

    Sent from Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg


  2. Nèdeem

    Unclear and confusing sometimes. For example, one needs to highlight that ‘political Islam’ has many colours and shades. One needs to go through the concept of the resistance movement and engage with. Is the movement revolutionary/emancipatory, reactionary or a both. Lack of elaboration in this type of topics is harmful.

  3. Robin Blick

    ‘We stand with Jewish anti-Zionist movements.’ Really? Then you support movements that are opposed to the mere existence of Israel, not just its current policies and actions. In what respects , if any, does this opposition differ from what you describe as ‘the monster of political Islam’, by which I assume you mean movements such as Hamas, and Hezbollah?

  4. Mary Robinson

    As an Iranian you know what happened to the leftists who sided with Khomenei in 79. They were all slaughtered or exiled. Now theyre at it again – siding with Islamists.

    1. We call them the ‘ Left part of the Axis of Resistance.’ The fact that a large part of this tendency, both in Iran and in the West, mourns for Sinwar is not only regrettable, but it also shuts down space for other discussions.

  5. HARRY DAVID PERRY

    We all know the aphorism of struggles: “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. But when you are involved in a multi-faceted, multi-level struggle with enemies on every side, which one do you side with? Which is the greater enemy to be defeated as a prelude to the next struggle against the secondary enemy? If Western progressive democratic forces side with the Islamist movements against Zionism and Israeli colonialism supported, as it is, by Western imperialism, what will happen? Well, we already know don’t we – we can’t beat them. In the current era these forces are just too powerful and the resistance forces are too weak, too divided and hopelessly outplayed at every turn by the propaganda and vested interests of the established politico-economic ‘set-up’. All they can achieve is to be a constant thorn in the side of Israel and the West, with generation after generation of activists killed, locked up, their organisations destroyed and activists disillusioned. The ‘lawn is being mowed’. Should we instead, then, side with Israel and Zionism against the Islamists? This is what Netanyahu and the Jewish fascists would like to see – and his appeal to the ‘Lebanese people’ to overthrow Hezbollah is just one aspect of this Zionist view. They think that with the Islamist militants defeated militarily they can establish their Greater Israel ‘from the river to the sea’. At the moment this seems the most likely outcome of the present phase of the conflict. We may not want to openly side with the Zionists but suppose we don’t stand in the way? A Jewish state from the river to the sea could be seen as a step toward a one-state solution. The struggle then would be one of a long-term fight for rights, equality, secularism. Perhaps the experience of the civil rights struggle in the USA is illustrative of this – progress occurs but it takes a hell of a long time and is never fully completed. Whichever way we jump it will be uncomfortable – and most of us won’t see even a partially satisfactory outcome in our lifetimes. The struggle has already been going on for over 75 years. Another century would not seem out of kilter with other great historic struggles. The problem then is that a form of fatalism sets in – we won’t see much progress in our lifetimes so why bother struggling at all? I don’t know the answer.

What you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Support The Fire Next Time

My journey in creating this space was deeply inspired by James Baldwin's powerful work,
"The Fire Next Time". Like Baldwin, who eloquently addressed themes of identity, race, and the human condition, this blog aims to be a beacon for open, honest, and sometimes uncomfortable discussions on similar issues.

Support The Fire Next Time and becoming a patron

Support The Fire Next Time by becoming a patron and help me grow and stay independent and editorially free for only €5 a month.

You can also support this work via PayPal.

PayPal
Substack
Youtube
Facebook
Instagram
X

Discover more from The Fire Next Time

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading