After Kazakhstan, the color revolution era is over

Our articles depend on you for their effectiveness. Share with kin, coworkers and friends.



Pepe Escobar
THE CRADLE


What happened in Kazakhstan increasingly looks like a US-Turkish-British-Israeli-led coup d'etat attempt foiled dramatically by their Eurasian adversaries


The 2022 events in Kazakhstan have foreign fingerprints all over them, and represent a developing Central Asian fight between two distinct opposing poles.

Photo Credit: The Cradle

The year 2022 started with Kazakhstan on fire, a serious attack against one of the key hubs of Eurasian integration. We are only beginning to understand what and how it happened.

On Monday morning, leaders of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) held an extraordinary session to discuss Kazakhstan.

Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev framed it succinctly. Riots were “hidden behind unplanned protests.” The goal was “to seize power” – a coup attempt. Actions were “coordinated from a single center.” And “foreign militants were involved in the riots.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin went further: during the riots, “Maidan technologies were used,” a reference to the Ukrainian square where 2013 protests unseated a NATO-unfriendly government.

Defending the prompt intervention of CSTO peacekeeping forces in Kazakhstan, Putin said, “it was necessary to react without delay.” The CSTO will be on the ground “as long as necessary,” but after the mission is accomplished, “of course, the entire contingent will be withdrawn from the country.” Forces are expected to exit later this week.

But here’s the clincher: “CSTO countries have shown that they will not allow chaos and ‘color revolutions’ to be implemented inside their borders.”

Putin was in synch with Kazakh State Secretary Erlan Karin, who was the first, on the record, to apply the correct terminology to events in his country: What happened was a “hybrid terrorist attack,” by both internal and external forces, aimed at overthrowing the government.

The tangled hybrid web

Virtually no one knows about it. But last December, another coup was discreetly thwarted in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek. Kyrgyz intel sources attribute the engineering to a rash of NGOs linked with Britain and Turkey.

That introduces an absolutely key facet of The Big Picture: NATO-linked intel and their assets may have been preparing a simultaneous color revolution offensive across Central Asia.

On my Central Asia travels in late 2019, pre-Covid, it was plain to see how western NGOs – Hybrid War fronts – remained extremely powerful in both Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

Yet, they are just one nexus in a western nebulae of Hybrid War fog deployed across Central Asia, and West Asia for that matter. Here we see the CIA and the US Deep State crisscrossing MI6 and different strands of Turkish intel.

When President Tokayev was referring in code to a “single center,” he meant a so far ‘secret’ US-Turk-Israeli military-intel operations room based in the southern business hub of Almaty, according to a highly placed Central Asia intel source.

In this “center,” there were 22 Americans, 16 Turks and 6 Israelis coordinating sabotage gangs – trained in West Asia by the Turks – and then rat-lined to Almaty.

The op started to unravel for good when Kazakh forces – with the help of Russian/CSTO intel – retook control of the vandalized Almaty airport, which was supposed to be turned into a hub for receiving foreign military supplies.

The Hybrid War west had to be stunned and livid at how the CSTO intercepted the Kazakh operation at such lightning speed. The key element is that the secretary of Russian National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, saw the Big Picture eons ago.

So, it’s no mystery why Russia’s aerospace and aero-transported forces, plus the massive necessary support infrastructure, were virtually ready to go.

Back in November, Patrushev’s laser was already focused on the degrading security situation in Afghanistan. Tajik political scientist Parviz Mullojanov was among the very few who were stressing that there were as many as 8,000 imperial machine Salafi-jihadi assets, shipped by a rat line from Syria and Iraq, loitering in the wilds of northern Afghanistan.

That’s the bulk of ISIS-Khorasan – or ISIS reconstituted near the borders of Turkmenistan. Some of them were duly transported to Kyrgyzstan. From there, it was very easy to cross the border from Bishek and show up in Almaty.

It took no time for Patrushev and his team to figure out, after the imperial retreat from Kabul, how this jihadi reserve army would be used: along the 7,500 km-long border between Russia and the Central Asian ‘stans’.

That explains, among other things, a record number of preparation drills conducted in late 2021 at the 210th Russian military base in Tajikistan.

James Bond speaks Turkish

The breakdown of the messy Kazakh op necessarily starts with the usual suspects: the US Deep State, which all but “sang” its strategy in a 2019 RAND corporation report, Extending Russia. Chapter 4, on “geopolitical measures”, details everything from “providing lethal aid to Ukraine”, “promoting regime change in Belarus”, and “increasing support for Syrian rebels” – all major fails – to “reducing Russian influence in Central Asia.”

That was the master concept. Implementation fell to the MI6-Turk connection.

The CIA and MI6 had been investing in dodgy outfits in Central Asia since at least 2005, when they encouraged the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), then close to the Taliban, to wreak havoc in southern Kyrgyzstan. Nothing happened.

It was a completely different story by May 2021, when the MI6’s Jonathan Powell met the leadership of Jabhat al-Nusra – which harbors a lot of Central Asian jihadis – somewhere in the Turkish-Syrian border near Idlib.

The deal was that these ‘moderate rebels’ – in US terminology – would cease to be branded ‘terrorists’ as long as they followed the anti-Russia NATO agenda.

That was one of the key prep moves ahead of the jihadist ratline to Afghanistan – complete with Central Asia branching out.

The genesis of the offensive should be found in June 2020, when former ambassador to Turkey from 2014 to 2018, Richard Moore, was appointed head of MI6.

Moore may not have an inch of Kim Philby’s competence, but he does fit the profile: rabid Russophobe, and a cheerleader of the Great Turania fantasy, which promotes a pan-Turk confederation of Turkic-speaking peoples from West Asia and the Caucasus to Central Asia and even Russian republics in the Volga.

MI6 is deeply entrenched in all the ‘stans’ except autarchic Turkmenistan – cleverly riding the pan-Turkist offensive as the ideal vehicle to counter Russia and China.

Erdogan himself has been invested on a hardcore Great Turania offensive, especially after the creation of the Turkic Council in 2009.

Crucially, next March, the summit of the Confederation Council of Turkic-speaking States – the new Turkic Council denomination – will take place in Kazakhstan. The city of Turkestan, in southern Kazakhstan, is expected to be named as the spiritual capital of the Turkic world.

And here, the ‘Turkic world’ enters into a frontal clash with the integrating Russian concept of Greater Eurasia Partnership, and even with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that, crucially, does not count Turkey as a member.

Erdogan’s short term ambition seems at first to be only commercial: after Azerbaijan won the Karabakh war, he expects to use Baku to get access to Central Asia via the Caspian Sea, complete with Turkey’s industrial-military complex sales of military technology to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Turkish companies are already investing heavily in real estate and infrastructure. And in parallel, Ankara’s soft power is on overdrive, finally collecting the fruits of exercising a lot of pressure, for instance, to speed up the transition in Kazakhstan from Cyrillic script to the Latin alphabet, starting in 2023.

Yet both Russia and China are very much aware that Turkey essentially represents NATO entering Central Asia. The organization of Turkic states are cryptically called the Kazakh operation ‘fuel protests’.

It’s all very murky. Erdogan’s neo-Ottomanism – which comes with massive cheerleading by his Muslim Brotherhood base – essentially has nothing to do with the pan-Turanic drive, which is a racialist movement predicating domination by relatively ‘pure’ Turks.

The problem is that they are converging while becoming more extreme, with Turkey’s right-wing Grey Wolves deeply implicated. That explains why Ankara intel is a sponsor and, in many cases, a weaponizer of both the ISIS-Khorasan franchise and those Turan racists, from Bosnia to Xinjiang via Central Asia.

The Empire handsomely profits from this toxic association, in Armenia, for instance. And the same would happen in Kazakhstan if the operation is successful.

Bring on the Trojan Horses

Every color revolution needs a ‘Maximum’ Trojan Horse. In our case, that seems to be the role of former head of KNB (National Security Committee) Karim Massimov, now held in prison and charged with treason.

Hugely ambitious, Massimov is half-Uyghur, and that, in theory, obstructed what he saw as his pre-ordained rise to power. His connections with Turkish intel are not yet fully detailed, unlike his cozy relationship with Joe Biden and son.

A former Minister of Internal Affairs and State Security, Lt Gen Felix Kulov, has weaved a fascinating tangled web explaining the possible internal dynamics of the ‘coup’ built into the color revolution.

According to Kulov, Massimov and Samir Abish, the nephew of recently ousted Kazakh Security Council Chairman Nursultan Nazarbayev, were up to their necks in supervising ‘secret’ units of ‘bearded men’ during the riots. The KNB was directly subordinated to Nazarbayev, who until last week was the chairman of the Security Council.

When Tokayev understood the mechanics of the coup, he demoted both Massimov and Samat Abish. Then Nazarbayev ‘voluntarily’ resigned from his life-long chairmanship of the Security Council. Abish then got this post, promising to stop the ‘bearded men,’ and then to resign.

So that would point directly to a Nazarbayev-Tokayev clash. It makes sense as, during his 29-year rule, Nazarbayev played a multi-vector game that was too westernized and which did not necessarily benefit Kazakhstan. He adopted British laws, played the pan-Turkic card with Erdogan, and allowed a tsunami of NGOs to promote an Atlanticist agenda.

Tokayev is a very smart operator. Trained by the foreign service of the former USSR, fluent in Russian and Chinese, he is totally aligned with Russia-China – which means fully in sync with the masterplan of the BRI, the Eurasia Economic Union, and the SCO.

Tokayev, much like Putin and Xi, understands how this BRI/EAEU/SCO triad represents the ultimate imperial nightmare, and how destabilizing Kazakhstan – a key actor in the triad – would be a mortal coup against Eurasian integration.

Kazakhstan, after all, represents 60 percent of Central Asia’s GDP, massive oil/gas and mineral resources, cutting-edge high tech industries: a secular, unitary, constitutional republic bearing a rich cultural heritage.

It didn’t take long for Tokayev to understand the merits of immediately calling the CSTO to the rescue: Kazakhstan signed the treaty way back in 1994. After all, Tokayev was fighting a foreign-led coup against his government.

Putin, among others, has stressed how an official Kazakh investigation is the only one entitled to get to the heart of the matter.

It’s still unclear exactly who – and to what extent – sponsored the rioting mobs. Motives abound: to sabotage a pro-Russia/China government, to provoke Russia, to sabotage BRI, to plunder mineral resources, to turbo-charge a House of Saud-style ‘Islamization’.

Rushed to only a few days before the start of the Russia-US ‘security guarantees’ in Geneva, this color revolution represented a sort of counter-ultimatum – in desperation – by the NATO establishment.

Central Asia, West Asia, and the overwhelming majority of the Global South have witnessed the lightning fast Eurasian response by the CSTO troops – who, having now done their job, are set to leave Kazakhstan in a couple of days – and how this color revolution has failed, miserably.

It might as well be the last. Beware the rage of a humiliated Empire.


Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia Times Online.


The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience. 

All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License



[premium_newsticker id="211406"]


 Don't forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days. 




The insufferable hypocrisy of Western governments hell-bent on destroying Julian Assange

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


the establishment media is an enabler of endless wars and illegitimate oligarchic power


The insufferable hypocrisy of Western governments hell-bent on destroying Julian Assange



Dec 31, 2021
Yonden Lhatoo's speech on Western hypocrisy should be watched by all those—including J-school students—who see themselves as mass communicators and influencers representing the world's "best values".  


The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

If you find the above useful, pass it on! Become an "influence multiplier"! 

Since the overpaid corporate media whores will never risk their careers to report the truth, the world must rely on citizen journalists to provide the facts that explain reality. Put this effort to use by becoming an influence multiplier. Repost this material everywhere you can. Send it to your friends and kin. Discuss it with your workmates. Liberation from this infernal and mendacious system is in your hands.
—The Editor, The Greanville Post
—The Editor, The Greanville Post
 


This post is part of our Orphaned Truths series with leading cultural and political analysts. People you can trust.


Indecent Corporate Journos Won't Do the Job, So Citizen Journalists Must

The Jimmy Dore Show • Fiorella Isabel — Craig Pasta Jardula (The Convo Couch) • Mike Prysner & Abby Martin (The Empire Files) • Lee Camp's Redacted Tonight • Caleb Maupin • Jonathan Cook • Jim Kavanagh • Paul Edwards • David Pear • Steven Gowans • Max Blumenthal • Ben Norton • Aaron Maté • Anya Parampil (The Grayzone) • Caitlin Johnstone • Chris Hedges • Alex Rubinstein • Alex Mercouris • Margaret Kimberley • Danny Haiphong • Bruce Lerro • Israel Shamir • Ron Unz • The Saker • Alan Macleod • Eric Zuesse • Ed Curtin • Gary Olson • Andrei Martyanov • Jeff J Brown • Godfree Roberts • Jacques Pauwels • Max Parry • Matt Orfalea • Glenn Greenwald • Rick Sterling • Jim Miles • Janice Kortkamp • Margaret Flowers


[premium_newsticker id="211406"]




The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post


YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST
VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?
It’s super easy! Sign up to receive our FREE bulletin.  Get TGP selections in your mailbox. No obligation of any kind. All addresses secure and never sold or commercialised. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal




The Real Legacy of Ariel Sharon

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.



IMPERIALISM IS ONLY DEGENERATE, MONOPOLY PHASE CAPITALISM



OpEds
Former Israeli Prime Minister and war criminal Ariel Sharon died on Jan 11th, 2014, after having spent the last eight years in a coma. He was 85 years old. Sharon was directly involved in war crimes and massacres throughout his career and was one of the most dominant political and military figures in the history of Israel. He was buried in a state funeral is Israel with full honors, being praised as a hero and a peacemaker. He never stood trial or faced justice for his crimes.

The appalling deeds of Sharon have been ceaselessly whitewashed by the bourgeois press, portraying him as a good patriot and a seeker of peace in the region, rather than the aggressive warmonger and genocidaire he was. Sharon was nothing less than a career war criminal, a proponent of state terrorism and apartheid against the Palestinians. He was also one of the United States’ oldest and most trusted allies.

Early Military Career

In 1942, the 14-year-old Ariel Sharon joined the Gadna, an Israeli paramilitary organization for youth, and eventually joined the Haganah, an underground paramilitary force and the precursor to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The Haganah was a Zionist organization that was active in the British Mandate of Palestine before the establishment of the state of Israel. It eventually resorted to terrorism and armed struggle against the British after World War II when they refused to allow unlimited Jewish immigration to Palestine. From 1947 onward it clashed with the British and Palestinians, cooperating with other Zionist paramilitaries like the Irgun and the Stern Gang. When Israel became a state in 1948, the Haganah became the core of the new IDF.

Sharon in his younger, dashing days. The beginning of a mythical figure.

 

Following the Israeli declaration of independence, Sharon gained attention for his military leadership in the subsequent 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Thus, Sharon started his military career in the very heart of the foundation of the Zionist state. Sharon was directly involved in all the major wars of Israel’s history, and was an active participant in war crimes even as far back as 1947.

During the war, 400,000 Palestinians were expelled from the the territory. Sharon’s unit of the Haganah, the Alexandroni Brigade, was involved in a massacre in the Palestinian village of Tantura and atrocities against Arabs around the village of Kfar Malal. In late 1948, after recovering from injuries from the war, Sharon met major Zionist leader and first Prime Minister of Israel David Ben-Gurion, who gave him the name Sharon.

After returning to his unit, Sharon was promoted to the rank of company commander and in 1950 became an intelligence officer for the IDF. He took leave for two years to study history and Middle Eastern culture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but returned to active service as a Major under the direct order of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. He became the leader of the newly-formed Special Forces Unit 101.

Operation Shoshana and the Qibya Massacre

The main purpose of Unit 101 was to act as a “retribution squad” to organize bloody reprisals for attacks by the Palestinian Fedayeen. In October 1953, Israeli troops from Unit 101 under the command of Ariel Sharon linked with a paratrooper brigade and set in motion “Operation Shoshana.” The elite commando force launched an attack on the West Bank village of Qibya. At least 69 Palestinian villagers, two-thirds of them women and children, were killed. Forty-five houses, a school and a mosque were destroyed.


S I D E B A R
How to Admit Without Admitting: the Lifetime War Criminal was a "Complex Man"
By Shaun Rodgers

This is how the bourgeois press handled its homage to Sharon (excerpts from the NYTimes).  Buried toward the bottom of an inevitable eulogy upon his passing, Jodi Rudoren, the designated writer for the NYT's obit Israel Bids Farewell to Sharon, a ‘Complex Man’ (Jan 13, 2014), said the following:

 

The son of Russian immigrants, Mr. Sharon grew up on a semicollective farm, and as a teenager joined the Haganah, the pre-state Zionist fighting brigade. He created Israel’s first elite special forces unit, 101, in 1953; commanded paratroops in the 1956 Sinai campaign; and led soldiers across the Suez Canal in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

Some of the usual suspects attend Sharon's funeral: Blair, Netanyahu and Joe Biden.


The son of Russian immigrants, Mr. Sharon grew up on a semicollective farm, and as a teenager joined the Haganah, the pre-state Zionist fighting brigade. He created Israel’s first elite special forces unit, 101, in 1953; commanded paratroops in the 1956 Sinai campaign; and led soldiers across the Suez Canal in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

“In every place that we have marched in, you have always been there before us,” said Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, chief of Israel’s military. “Every target that we have attacked, you have known from previous battles.”

Mr. Sharon faced condemnation abroad for episodes like a 1953 reprisal attack against the West Bank village of Qibya, then under Jordanian rule, in which 69 Palestinians were killed. He was ousted as defense minister after the 1982 Lebanon War, and is still denounced as a war criminal by some human rights groups for the massacres of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut.


The U.N. Security Council passed a Resolution strongly condemning the attack. Ariel Sharon, who led the operation, later wrote in his diary: “The orders were utterly clear: Qibya was to be an example for everyone,” and that his orders were to inflict “maximal killing and damage to property.” No sanctions or pressure were put on Israel.

Sharon led the 890 Paratroopers Brigade in raids into Arab territory, soon establishing himself as a brilliant military strategist and a ruthless, insubordinate soldier. Survivors of his commando raids universally reported brutality and war crimes.

Suez War and the Khan Yunis Massacre

Israel joined hands with the United Kingdom and France to invade Egypt during the Suez Crisis. The Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt came in 1956 when Egypt nationalized the company that operated the strategically vital Suez Canal. Britain and France aimed to assert their dominance in the Middle East and seize the canal by force, and Israel’s aims were to weaken its Arab neighbors and gain territory from Egypt. The Western powers thus showed their support for Israel’s expansionist policies and Israel showed its willingness to join with imperialism.

Israeli troops began the war by invading Egyptian territory and occupying the Sinai Peninsula while Anglo-French forces began a bombardment of Egypt and occupied the Port Said area. This invasion was bravely resisted by the Egyptians, and the progressive organizations and nations of the world condemned the invasion. England and France used their veto power to paralyze the U.N. Security Council.

During the Suez War, Sharon led several decisive attacks in the Egyptian Sinai. However, it was during this period his militia terrorism made the transition to an organized military doctrine of IDF terrorism, including coordinated attacks on civilians and terror bombing.

It was during Israel’s attack on the Egyptian-held Gaza Strip that the IDF perpetrated a massacre against the Palestinian village of Khan Yunis and a refugee camp of the same name. Hundreds of Palestinians were shot in two massacres during the Israeli occupation. Although Israel tried to claim that the massacre was actually street-fighting between themselves and Egyptian-Palestinian forces and a subsequent resistance-free occupation, eyewitness accounts universally tell a story of Israeli soldiers systematically lining up and executing Arab men and suspected Fedayeen and searching homes to confiscate firearms. The mass killings also occurred after hostilities between the two belligerants had ended. The medieval caravanserai in the center of the village was used as a wall to execute Palestinian men; it remains riddled with bullets to this day.



In the nearby refugee camp, eyewitness accounts attested to the same activity: men were taken from their home by the IDF and summarily executed. 275 people were killed in the massacre, including 140 refugees from the camp. A strict curfew was imposed which prevented the gathering of the dead. Upon Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 1957 under international pressure, mass graves of Arab men who had been bound and shot in the back of the head were found.

In one battle, Sharon led his troops through the Sinai’s Mitla Pass against the orders of his superiors. Allegations were made in later years that Sharon had intentionally provoked and engaged Egyptian positions without authorization so that a battle would ensue. Sharon’s actions in Mitla and the resulting heavy Israeli casualties stalled his military career for several years.

Six-Day War

In 1967, an armed attack by Israel against Egypt, Syria and Jordan led to the seizure of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria, tripling the size of the Israeli state. Israel claimed it was a “preemptive” strike against a planned invasion by Egypt, a position it later had to abandon. An estimated 300,000 Palestinians left the West Bank and Gaza. Israel declared it would not give up conquered territories. A war of attrition would be fought for several years between Egypt and Israel along the Suez Canal.

In the lead-up to the Six-Day War, Sharon rose rapidly in the ranks of the army, eventually becoming a Major General. During the war he was assigned to command the most powerful armored division on the Sinai front. Again Sharon followed his own strategy against the orders of his superiors, and enacted his own complex battle plan. This culminated in the Battle of Abu-Ageila, where Sharon’s victory against the Egyptians played a vital role in Israeli seizure of the Sinai. Sharon was promoted to the head of the IDF’s Southern Command, which he held until he was relieved of duty in 1974.

Yom Kippur War

Israel’s refusal to settle the results of the Six-Day War and give back its conquered territory led to a new outbreak of hostilities in 1973, on the Jewish holy day Yom Kippur. In what is often called the “Yom Kippur War,” Egypt and Syria, supported by Iraq, Jordan, Libya and other Arab states, attacked Israel. Egyptian forces struck across the Suez, while the Syrians advanced from the north. The war caught Israel off-guard, and the increased military capacity of the Arab states made a big impression. An oil embargo imposed by the Arab side also proved effective in proving the new balance of forces, and two U.S.-Soviet sponsored ceasefires were drawn up in 1974. Israeli territorial gains from the Six-Day War were largely given up, but the war ended inconclusively.

Sharon was recalled to active duty to fight in the war, commanding a reserve armored division. In a tactical move that yet again went against the command of his superiors, Israeli forces under his command crossed and encircled the Suez, undermining the Egyptian Second Army and encircling and capturing the Third Army. This decisive move was regarded by many as a turning point in the Sinai ground offensive.

Sharon was brought before a military tribunal for these actions, but was released on the grounds of his military effectiveness. Due to Sharon’s controversial actions and politics, he was relieved of military duty in 1974. During this conflict, Sharon was hailed as a war hero and earned the nickname “The Lion of God.” Shortly after his retirement, Sharon entered politics when he joined the right-wing Likud party.

Entering Politics

Sharon became a special aid to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin from 1975 to 1976, and before the 1977 elections tried to replace Menachem Begin as the head of Likud, but was rejected. Sharon resorted to forming his own party, Shlomtzion, which won two seats in the Israeli parliament, after which it immediately merged with the Likud. Sharon showed as much cunning in politics as he did in warfare. This shrewd move earned him a post as Minister of Agriculture in the Begin administration, a post that would allow him greater connection to the rural population and farmers of Israel, becoming a “strong-armed protector” of settlers and “patron saint of the settlements.”

Sharon began using his position to encourage Jewish settlement of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights, winning the support of the Jewish settlers and expansionist elements within the military. During his term the number of Israeli settlements in these areas doubled. Due to the support he garnered Sharon was instrumental in Likud’s win in the 1981 elections. He was rewarded with an appointment to Minister of Defense. It was during his time as Defense Minister that Sharon would transition from “slow motion genocide” of Palestinians through settlements to armed genocide through the IDF, and commit perhaps his most infamous and genocidal crimes.

The Butcher of Beirut

In 1982, Palestinian gunmen attempted to assassinate Shlomo Argov, the Israeli ambassador in London. It soon becomes known that the assailants are part of a small organization led by Abu Nidal, which formed after a split with Yasser Arafat’s Fatah faction within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Since the split the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) had been the mortal enemy of Arafat’s PLO. Furthermore, the ANO was also based in Syria and not Lebanon. Some say the ANO attack was ordered by an agent of the Iraqi Intelligence Service to embroil Israel in a war with Lebanon and Syria, while others suspect that Abu Nidal’s group was manipulated into the attack by Mossad. Whatever the case, it soon became known that the assassination attempt was a plot by Nidal’s splinter group to provoke Israel into an open assault upon Nidal’s enemies in the PLO. The assassins included Nidal’s cousin, and their next target was to be the PLO representative in London.

Even though the attack on the ambassador was not ordered by the PLO, the incident was used as a pretext by Prime Minister Begin and Defense Minister Sharon to launch a long-planned full-scale invasion of Lebanon to destroy the headquarters of the PLO in the Lebanese capital of Beirut and install a Zionist-friendly Lebanese government. Defense Minister Ariel Sharon launched the invasion, called “Operation Peace for Galilee.”

The government of Lebanon had expressed solidarity with the Arab victims of Israeli aggression, taking part in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. A large number of Palestinian refugees fled to Lebanon, and Palestinian resistance organizations had been operating from Lebanese territory for decades. Lebanon also expressed support of the Arab states in the 1967 war and the relevant U.N. Security Council Resolutions calling for a settlement to the crisis. The country had had a series of chronically unstable governments, some independent and some pro-imperialist in orientation, fostering uncertain relations between the government and the Palestinian refugees and resistance organizations such as the PLO. Nevertheless, because of the support it had shown to the Palestinian cause, Lebanon had been regularly subjected to Israeli acts of aggression since 1968.

As the result of internal contradictions between pro-Western, pan-Arab, right-wing nationalist and progressive forces, with the addition of the machinations of Israel and the imperialist countries, a civil war broke out in Lebanon in 1975 which caused great damage to the country. Israel occupied the south of the country in 1978 in response to PLO actions but was forced to withdraw in favor of a U.N. force sent to control militia activity. In 1981, Beirut was subjected to Israeli air strikes against PLO targets. But now, the time for a full-scale attack by Israel had come.

On June 6th, 1982, Israeli forces launched a massive invasion of the south of Lebanon at Ariel Sharon’s command. Sharon presented it to the Israeli parliament and the international community as a limited incursion 40 kilometers into Lebanon, but the IDF quickly swept throughout the country towards Beirut. Four armored columns cross into Lebanon, coupled with an amphibious assault of tanks and paratroopers north of Sidon. The cities of Tyre and Sidon in South Lebanon were heavily damaged, but even these would pale next to the Siege of Beirut.

Seven days after the start of the invasion, the IDF closed a ring around Beirut and began a savage artillery bombardment of the city, in which the PLO was isolated. For ten weeks, Israel attacked the city by land, sea and air, indiscriminately bombing the city with aircraft, cutting off food, water and electricity, capturing the Beirut Airport and southern suburbs in heavy house-to-house fighting. By the end of the first week over five hundred buildings had been destroyed and civilians had died by the thousands. By the end of the brutal siege, much of Beirut lay in ruins.

During this time, Ariel Sharon presented a plan for a large-scale conquest of West Beirut to destroy the PLO with the approval of Prime Minister Begin. The plan was rejected by the Israeli cabinet due to the amount of deaths it would cause. Some parties even threatened to leave the ruling coalition if the plan was adopted.

Israel’s invasion of Lebanon approved by Sharon, since it was a pre-planned invasion under faulty pretenses with the intention to retain occupied Lebanese territory, violated the United Nations Charter. The Security Council endorsed a draft Resolution to condemn the Israeli invasion and demand immediate withdrawal by a vote of 14 out of 15, but the draft was vetoed by the United States. Israel also attacked Syrian positions in Bekaa Valley, shooting down Syrian aircraft and destroying anti-air defense installations. Israeli armored units drove the Syrian army back. The Israeli assault on Syrian forces when the two countries were not in a state of war and Syria had made no offensive gesture towards Israel again violated international law.

On August 10th, with the U.S. pressuring Israel through its special envoy Philip Habib to come to an agreement for peace that involved the safe passage of the PLO out of Lebanon, Defense Minister Sharon raised the stakes and ordered a saturation bombing of Beirut, during which six hundred civilians were killed and thousands more were injured. In response to these actions and the fact that Sharon had lied to his own government about his motivations for the war, the cabinet stripped Sharon of his ability to command the air force, armored brigades and artillery without the consent of other branches of the government, effectively stripping Sharon of most of his powers.

A peace agreement was finally reached on August 18th, Syria having agreed to the deal since the 7th. All the demands of Israel and Sharon were met. Over a period of several weeks following August 21, Yasser Arafat and thousands of PLO fighters were forced to leave Lebanon by sea and land under the supervision of a multinational force of troops. The bulk of PLO fighters were transferred to Tunisia while others were dispersed to Syria, Yemen and Iraq, further away than ever from their ancestral homeland.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon resulted in more than thirty thousand deaths and half a million homeless. Israel withdrew in the main by 1985 but occupied part of South Lebanon amounting to 10% of Lebanon’s territory, which the Israelis called a “Security Zone,” for nearly twenty years until 2000. Despite these atrocities, the 1982 war is primarily remembered for what would be Sharon’s most infamous crime: the Sabra and Shatila Massacre.

The Sabra and Shatila Massacre

From the very first day of the invasion of Lebanon, Ariel Sharon entered into secret negotiations with Bachir Gemayel, the Maronite Christian leader of the far-right Phalangist paramilitary organization for joint operations in Beirut between the IDF and the Phalange militia. A possible war with Syria was also considered. Gemayel had been a supporter of the Israeli intervention from the beginning, praising it as a “surgical operation.” Gemayel had the largest private army in Lebanon – 25,000 fighters at the time of the Israeli invasion. Israel agreed to help Gemayel become President of Lebanon, and Gemayel in return would pursue a policy favorable towards Israel and their occupation of southern Lebanon, and would expel the PLO headquarters from Beirut.

On August 23, after the conclusion of the tentative peace agreement, the Lebanese parliament elected Gemayel as President under Israeli guns. Israel sought to destroy the PLO command and install a far-right, Christian pro-Zionist government under Gemayel. Israel attempted to get the new President to sign a peace accord, but Gemayel was assassinated three weeks later on September 14th by a car bomb, temporarily ruining Sharon’s plans. In the wake of his death, Sharon broke the ceasefire and ordered the security forces in Lebanon to occupy West Beirut, near where the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps were located.

By noon on September 15th, the Sabra and Shatila camps were completely surrounded by the IDF forces under Sharon’s command, sealing off the camps and preventing helpless civilians from escaping what was to come. The security forces set up checkpoints and entrances, and occupied multi-story buildings with unobstructed panoramic views of Sabra and Shatila. Ariel Sharon and IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan met with the Phalangist militia leaders, telling them the PLO was responsible for Gemayel’s assassination (a Lebanese Christian member of the Syrian Socialist National Party confessed and no Palestinians were involved) and inviting them to enter Sabra and the adjacent Shatila.

1,500 militiamen assembled in the Israeli-controlled airport and were transported to the area by IDF jeeps. Israel also provided the militia with careful instructions on how to enter. Beginning from 6:00 p.m. on September 16, over 3,000 Palestinian refugees were massacred by the militia under the command of Eli Hobeika over a period of three days while Sharon’s Israeli security forces stood by and watched.

There were no combatants in Sabra or Shatila; only Palestinian civilians and a small number of Lebanese Shiites. During the first night, the Israeli forces fired flares to light the militia’s way at the Phalangists’ request. According to one witness the camp was so brightly lit it was like “a sports stadium during a football game.” Israel’s allies slaughtered men and boys, women, children, infants and the elderly. Many bodies were found to have been severely mutilated: boys were castrated, others were scalped or had the Christian cross carved into their bodies. Rape was extremely prevalent. Children and infants were killed for sport. Israeli bulldozers buried the corpses of the victims in mass graves.

Blame was shifted from Sharon and Israel to the Lebanese Phalange that carried out the massacre at Sabra and Shatila, but Sharon organized the massacre by being closely allied with the militia, giving them the “green light” to attack the camps, and ordering his soldiers to do nothing, or even aid the attackers logistically while the mass murder happened. Without Sharon and the Israelis, the massacre in the Israeli-controlled camps would not have been possible.

The massacres were publicized to an international outcry. The United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre at Sabra and Shatila and determined it to be an act of genocide. The Kahan Commission was convened by the the Israeli parliament to investigate the massacres at Sabra and Shatila. It was chaired by the President of the Supreme Court. In 1983, the commission found Defense Minister Ariel Sharon to hold “personal responsibility” for the massacre and the actions of the IDF which controlled the camps. Sharon resigned from his position as Defense Minister after initially refusing to do so, but was not prosecuted for the mass murder. Prime Minister Begin immediately appointed him as a “minister without portfolio” and Sharon was allowed to remain in the parliament and held a variety of offices in successive governments.

In 2001, relatives of victims of the massacre filed a lawsuit against the newly-elected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to bring him to trial for war crimes. The Belgian Supreme Court dismissed the case in 2003.

Campaign for Prime Minister and Temple Mount Visit

After his resignation, Sharon remained a minister without portfolio until only 1984, when he received a portfolio and became Minister for Trade and Industry until 1990. Sharon slowly re-ascended Israel’s political ladder, becoming Minister of Housing Construction, effectively being placed in charge of Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. He also became a member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and oversaw Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union. Sharon soon became the main rival of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, trying in several bids to replace him but failing each time. Sharon was Minister of National Infrastructure in the administration of Benjamin Netanyahu and then Foreign Minister from 1998 to 1999. After the electoral victory of Ehud Barak’s Labor Party, Sharon became the head of Likud in 1999.

During his campaign for Prime Minister on September 28, 2000, Sharon, guarded by a thousand Israeli security forces and police, embarked on a controversial visit to the Al Aqsa mosque in the Temple Mount complex in Jerusalem. Sharon declared that the complex would remain under Israeli control. This highly provocative action was clearly designed to assert the Israeli right to set foot in the Muslim holy place. This action by the “Butcher of Beirut” would lead to large Palestinian protests by September 29th, the Muslim Day of Prayer. Prime Minister Barak dispatched an enormous police and military presence to the mosque. By the following day the protests had grown larger, and Israeli police used live ammunition to suppress the demonstrators, killing five and injuring over 200, including 12-year-old Muhammad al-Durra. These events would lead to both Sharon’s election as Israeli Prime Minister and the Second Intifada Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation, also known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which would be marked by severe IDF repression of Palestinians.

Sharon as Prime Minister

In May 2001, Ariel Sharon replaced Ehud Barak as the Israeli Prime Minister. Sharon’s election was hailed by the United States, who called him one of “America’s oldest and strongest allies.” No mention was made of his war criminal past. During the Second Intifada he oversaw increasingly savage Israeli repression against Palestinians, in turn causing an escalation of Palestinian reprisals as well as suicide bombings by organizations such as Hamas and the PLO split called the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Months later, Sharon ordered a full-scale IDF invasion of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, razing entire communities to the ground. The repression was so severe that even U.S. President George W. Bush called for an Israeli withdrawal, which Sharon ignored. This was to be the first of a series of IDF incursions into what remained of Palestine, all of which were marked with war crimes.

Sharon endorsed Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and West Bank while at the same time authoring a unilateral disengagement plan, putting the idea of an independent Palestinian state, in the words of Sharon’s own spokesman Dov Weissglass, into “formaldehyde.” This startling revelation by Sharon’s right-hand man openly admitted that the goal of the disengagement plan was to “freeze the peace process” and prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, as well as “prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.”

Colonization and the “Unilateral Disengagement Plan”

Many politicians, particularly from the United States, have portrayed Sharon as a “peacemaker” who gave concessions on Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory to pursue peace with the Palestinians. President Barack Obama issued a statement on Sharon’s death where he stressed the United States’ “unshakable commitment to Israel’s security” and at the same time said the U.S. would “strive for lasting peace.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Sharon “surprised many in his pursuit of peace,” and even praised Sharon’s “lifelong convictions” for a peace process. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon praised Sharon’s “political courage and determination” in his “painful and historic decision to withdraw Israeli settlers and troops from the Gaza Strip.” Tony Blair claimed Sharon “didn’t think of peace as a dreamer, but did dream of peace” and “sought peace with…iron determination.”

These shibboleths cannot disguise the truth. Since the 1970s, Sharon was one of the chief architects of the Israeli settlement of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights region. He was given the moniker “father of the settlements.”

In 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush put forward a plan known as the “roadmap for peace in the Middle East,” which offered a land-for-peace deal in which Israel would be called upon to partially abide by previous United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and a Palestinian state would be established by 2005. The Palestinian National Council immediately agreed to the proposal, while the Sharon government initially refused the proposition. Eventually, under heavy pressure from the United States, Sharon’s Israel reversed their position under the condition that Yasser Arafat stepped down and the PNC halted all military actions. No mention was made of Israeli military actions.

Arafat agreed to the proposal and stepped down in favor of Mahmoud Abbas. Sharon continued to order IDF actions against Hamas and other Palestinian organizations under the excuse of continued Hamas and Islamic Jihad actions. Finally, the two organizations agreed to suspend their actions, leaving Sharon no choice but to withdraw his troops from the West Bank. It should be further noted that these political moves took place in the context of the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank increasing from 388,000 to 461,000. Sharon’s alleged “concessions” for peace were a slight and short-lived rollback. He resorted to troop withdrawal and peace talks as a matter of having no alternative.

Thus, Sharon once again showed himself to be a pioneer in new ways to steal land from Palestinians: he engineered a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and West Bank while at the same time keeping control of them from without. All of Sharon’s “concessions” have also not prevented Israel from laying bloody sieges to the West Bank and Gaza Strip on a regular basis, nor have any of them involved an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights (which even the United States recognizes as Syrian territory), and have not prevented Israeli control of Palestinian coastline and airspace. Sharon also ordered the construction of apartheid walls, including a 430-mile-long barrier around the West Bank, a fence caging in the entire Gaza Strip, and a steel barrier separating Gaza from Egypt.

The End of Sharon’s Career

In November 2005, facing a split over the issue of the “disengagement” plan, Sharon resigned as head of government, stepped down from the leadership of the Likud party, dissolved parliament and called for new elections. He founded the new Kadima party, made mostly of politicians from Likud and Labor who had defected. Sharon’s rival Benjamin Netanyahu was chosen as the new leader of Likud, but polls showed that Kadima were likely to win the 2006 legislative elections and Sharon to win the prime ministership. On December 18, Sharon was hospitalized for a minor stroke. Against doctor’s orders, Sharon returned to work immediately and suffered a major stroke on January 4, 2006. He underwent a complicated major surgery lasting more than seven hours. Doctors stopped the bleeding in his brain, but Sharon slipped into a coma from which he would never awaken.

The following month, the cabinet declared Sharon permanently incapacitated. Sharon was replaced by Ehud Olmert, who would later be responsible for genocidal massacres in the Gaza Strip in 2008-2009 and a second invasion of Lebanon in 2006, as Interim Prime Minister. Kadima under Ehud Olmert would win the most seats in the parliamentary elections, followed by Labor, resulting in a major loss of seats for Likud. Olmert formed a new government with himself as Prime Minister in May. Sharon would remain in a permanent vegetative state in a long-term care facility until his death.

Conclusion

The death of war criminal Ariel Sharon is a grim reminder of the crimes of the apartheid state of Israel against the Palestinian people, and the involvement of the United States and world imperialism in those crimes. Sharon’s virulently anti-Palestinian policies, aggressive wars and political tyranny, as well as his avoidance of any trial or prosecution are undeniable, as is the political, financial and military support he received from the U.S.

Sharon in his long coma. (This is a heavily photoshopped image. The reality was less charming.)

Israeli rule over Palestinians is fascist in nature. The Zionist state and the imperialist system that support it are bigger than one man, but Sharon was a symbol of the harsh Israeli discrimination against Palestinians, and the refusal of both the United States and Israel to accept Palestinian resistance as a legitimate and inevitable response to the forcible establishment of the Zionist state, the settlement of Jews on Palestinian land and the continued killing and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Sharon was one of the first politicians to use the word “terrorism” to delegitimize this resistance.

Ariel Sharon had one goal in his life: to ethnically cleanse the Jewish “ancestral homeland” of Palestinians and carve out a Greater Israel, as large and as powerful as possible. Ariel Sharon was a genocidal monster who wanted to erase the Palestinian people from the map, not a “hero” or a “peacemaker.” Reflecting on his death, we should also reflect on the destruction Sharon brought to the lives of thousands.

Real peace for Palestine can only be achieved if Israeli forces are driven from all occupied territories, if equal rights for Arabs are upheld, if the revolutionary forces liberate Palestine from apartheid rule, and if the right of Palestinians for self-determination and the creation of their own state is realized.  [That will require profound changes in Israel itself.—Ed]

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

If you find the above useful, pass it on! Become an "influence multiplier"!
The battle against the Big Lie killing the world will not be won by you just reading this article. It will be won when you pass it on to at least 2 other people, requesting they do the same.


Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?
It's super easy! Sign up to receive our FREE bulletin. Get TGP selections in your mailbox. No obligation of any kind. All addresses secure and never sold or commercialised.

 



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License


ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
 

black-horizontal




Why Does the Pseudo-Left Hate Grover Furr?

Our articles depend on you for their effectiveness. Share with kin, coworkers and friends.



on November 19, 2017
The Red Phoenix



Grover Furr is an American professor and author. He has taught at Montclair State University in New Jersey for over four decades, and has written essays, articles and books on Soviet history in both Russian and English. Though his body of work covers a wide variety of topics, his most famous writings study the period of Soviet history under Joseph Stalin, particularly regarding controversies around the Moscow Trials, the Katyn “massacre,” the events in Poland in 1939, the murder of Sergei Kirov, the Ukrainian famine and Khrushchev’s “secret speech.” Furr’s research on the history of communism, Soviet history and the historical falsifications told against socialism is some of the most remarkable, ground-breaking and enlightening in the world. He uses a very precise and admirable document-based approach to research that is exceedingly valuable and hard to find elsewhere.

This approach, unsurprisingly, has won him more than a fair share of enemies and critics, not only on the right but the left as well. Those on the left who attack Grover Furr are the most peculiar of his critics. Professor Furr is someone that sets about examining historical allegations used to attack socialism, and in his published books and articles finds and publishes objective documentary and archival proof that it is not true, or at least deceptive. In other words, he spends a great deal of time and effort countering bourgeois propaganda about Marxism-Leninism. What has been their response? To attack him. One would think someone who speaks Russian, has translated Russian documents and has access to the archives would be of interest to those looking to learn about the history of socialism. One would further think, that a sincere person who considers themselves a socialist or a Marxist would thank Grover Furr for finding proof that a large portion of what we are told about Stalin and the U.S.S.R. are lies.

We live in an age where most Marxist or progressive academics who dare to challenge the status quo are fired, sidelined, driven out of academia or simply deemed irrelevant. Only a fool would pretend that academic repression isn’t a reality. Yet, when it comes to the brave, bold and challenging works Furr has published, critics universally dismiss them without reviewing the evidence he presents. In discussions, I have never heard them say, “No Professor Furr, I disagree with your thesis statement, and wish to make a counter-thesis. Here are my facts, arguments and sources backing it up.” Instead, what I hear over and over is his work dismissed as “absurd,” “insane,” or Furr himself labeled as a “crackpot” or “Stalinist.” There is almost always an attempt to link his methods of research to anti-Semites and fascists, or even outright call him a “Holocaust denier,” implicitly comparing Soviet history with Nazi Germany.

Why do his critics almost universally behave in this manner? The answer is simply: because they can’t refute anything he says.

For all Furr’s research has contributed to our understanding of Soviet history and to refuting the lies told about life in socialist countries, his critics and opponents have not offered any meaningful refutation of his works or even engaged with the evidence contained therein. When pressed to sum up his theses, the evidence he presents to support them, and then to offer counter-evidence and refutations of their own, silence fills the space. Very few, if any of his critics are capable of defining what specific points of his works they disagree with or can prove false. Often they assert things that are already addressed in the article in question. The opponents of Furr’s research, whatever their ideological differences may be, all share one common thread that over time is rendered impossible to miss. For all their ranting and raving, not a single one directly challenges him on the sources or attempts to refute his argument. There is a concrete reason for this – opposition to Furr’s research comes from knee-jerk anti-communism.

The pseudo-left’s endless venom towards Furr’s work is entirely (no, not partially, or even mostly, but from what I have seen, entirely) devoid of counter-criticism, counter-evidence, contrasting research or engagement in any way, shape or form with Furr’s work. At the present time, there are no scholarly refutations of Grover Furr’s work. Hostile reviews, on the other hand, are plentiful. Nor is there any lack of critics who chant “give us more evidence,” demanding a larger amount of evidence to their satisfaction – which of course, is a level of evidence that will never exist, no matter how much of it there is. Another consistent pattern with his critics is that they assume that an author must be able to prove the meaning of their research to the satisfaction of a hostile or skeptical critic in order to be considered valid. If the author fails to accomplish this task, it proves that he or she doesn’t understand what it means, and furthermore their failure to do so is definitive proof that the entirety of the research is consequently meaningless.

The debate on Grover Furr is always about form – the person, his writing style, his alleged motives, his allege dishonesty or lack of qualifications, and never about content – the evidence presented, what it shows, and whether it’s true or not. The infantile pseudo-left responds to science with provocation, facts with hostility, reason with insults, ideological questions with personal attacks, and the deep questions posed by Furr’s work with shallow criticisms. This is not to say that anyone who has criticisms of Furr’s work is automatically opposed to socialism. Far from it – criticism is an essential part of being a Marxist-Leninist. But by and large the criticisms of Grover Furr are not made from a principled standpoint.

“No one takes Grover Furr seriously” is the refrain. Yet, John Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Lars Lih and many others have praised Furr’s work while disagreeing with his politics. One does not have to completely share Furr’s worldview to find a great deal of value in his essays, articles and books. In fact, any serious researcher, Marxist or not, can learn a great deal from the evidence he gathers to back up his viewpoints, evidence that is almost never studiously read or studied by those who violently denounce it. If the idea that Furr is not a serious academic is a legitimate position to take, then there should be criticisms of his scholarship. Perhaps not surprisingly, I haven’t heard a single argument as to why Grover Furr is an unacceptable source of information other than his opinions aren’t popular. If his arguments themselves cannot be addressed, then his critics have no right to reject the citing of his work.

Much is made of Furr’s “academic credentials,” or alleged lack thereof, to write about the subjects he chooses. He is an English professor they say, and therefore cannot be considered an authority on history. These noble knights dedicated to the defense of “credible” capitalist academia you see, must speak out against Furr. Yet, these same people have no problem with the works of Noam Chomsky, a linguist who writes an endless parade of books on a wide variety of subjects outside of his field, such as criticizing U.S. foreign policy, economy, science, immigration and the Cold War. Anyone who is familiar with Chomsky’s work knows his views are fairly traditional anarchism combined with Enlightenment-era classical liberalism. They are not friendly to socialism, and certainly no threat to anyone in the ruling class. Speaking out against imperialism in of itself is not a particularly radical act, especially when you’re not criticizing it from a Marxist perspective. Many far-rightists and libertarians speak out against U.S. foreign policy as well. Why the double standard? What is the difference between Furr and Chomsky? Quite simple, really. Chomsky is the poster boy of left anti-communism, of a “safe” and defanged leftism deprived of anything not acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Meanwhile, Furr’s research attempts to refute popular anti-communist propaganda instead of accepting it. The pseudo-left would rather back the petty-bourgeois cause than the proletarian one, because they are “radicals” stuck in that method of thinking.

It is is absolutely inarguable that the modern view of the history of socialism has been shaped by those who despise it, and yet phony leftists have no trouble upholding the most vile smears against Soviet, Eastern European and Chinese history. In an atmosphere where the highly dubious works of Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes are upheld as a dogma and treated as material to be seriously engaged with or even refuted, Furr’s work is singled out by both reactionaries and the pseudo-left for outright dismissal and slander.

When denial is not enough, general charges are invented, such as the allegation his presentations of history are “conspiracy theories.” This has also been used to describe the works of other Marxist-Leninist scholars, such as William Bland. I stress again that until there are refutations, one cannot accept these charges. After all, with all the history of capitalist plots we’ve learned, can one seriously accept this level of argumentation? Are the facts true, or not? Blanket cries of “Stalinist” directed against Furr mean nothing. If critics have counter-evidence, then let them step forward and present it. This should not be an unreasonable demand for a Marxist – or for anyone, really.

When Furr speaks of opposition conspiracies within the Soviet Union, or of holes and outright falsifications in the official story of Katyn, these are treated with the utmost skepticism. The idea that the defendants of the Moscow Trials may have actually been involved in terrorist conspiracies to overthrow the Soviet government and assassinate officials is seen as nonsense. Yet, when we are presented with stories of a heinous conspiracy involving J.V. Stalin and a substantial number of other high officials to themselves assassinate Zinoviev, Bukharin and a number of others through judicial means, then this “conspiracy theory” is adopted as the default correct position. It follows that it is easier to go along with the dominant narrative – that is, that of the bourgeoisie – regarding the history of socialism than it is to objectively challenge these ideas.

With the fake left, the formula could not be more simple: U.S. Cold War propaganda is upheld, pro-communist scholarly research is not. Every charge against the socialist countries is true; every defense of socialism is akin to Holocaust denial. Those who would agree, at least in words, that the history of the Soviet Union is falsified by capitalist scholars and reactionaries, and that socialist leaders are routinely subjected to outright slander are declared “insane,” their research or conclusions “absurd,” and derided as “crackpots” or “Stalinists.” The critics do not review the evidence or engage with the thesis; they merely dismiss it. They do not present counter-evidence; they merely assert it. Furr’s fake “left” opponents claim that Furr is “not credible scholarship” only because they don’t agree with it. Furr is only a “crackpot” because they don’t like what he has to say. In their view, scholarly research that counters the bourgeois propaganda narrative of history should be cast aside, silenced, devalued, delegitimized, hidden from the public view and ultimately, destroyed.

It seems to me the “left” needs to look in a mirror and stare itself straight in the eye, and ask: what have we come to, if we cannot refute these works? What exactly does it say, when the entire pseudo-left cannot refute someone who is supposedly “a crackpot with no academic credentials?” What does it say, when they cannot even define the actual content of his work when asked, yet they have already declared it false on the whole? What does it say, when they have no evidence to counter Furr’s claims, but rely on attacking Grover Furr the person?

Any allegations that his works are “below criticism” are disingenuous. If they are worthy of such hostility, then they are worthy of honest criticism. If only all of us checked their facts and cited their sources for all to see like Furr does, rather than rest on our own preconceived notions and prejudices, perhaps the American left wouldn’t be in such a precarious position these days.

The pseudo-left’s hatred has nothing to do with honesty. This is because of anti-communism, not political disagreement, not ideological difference, not a problem with Furr’s research or his conclusions, not an issue with his methods, or legitimate criticism of his evidence. It is a liberal and reactionary view that anything anti-Soviet and anti-Stalin must be true, while anything that challenges that view must be attacked, smeared, demonized, ridiculed and silenced. When evidence is not engaged with or dismissed, and the person themselves is slandered, it is not principled disagreement, it is not ideological difference – it is hate and prejudice.

The question stands: why does the pseudo left hate Grover Furr? The answer becomes plain: they hate Grover Furr precisely because his works challenge the hegemony of the Trotsky-Khrushchev-Gorbachev-Cold War anti-communist anti-Stalin paradigm, the dominant paradigm of the bourgeoisie. In other words, they hate Grover Furr because he is a good communist in an age filled with fake ones. They hate Grover Furr because he is an honest researcher in an age filled to the brim with propaganda. They hate Grover Furr because he has evidence for the conclusions he draws and presents it openly, rather than relying on emotionalism. They hate Grover Furr because he challenges the bourgeois anti-communist understanding of Soviet history. These days pseudo-leftists are not just dishonest or liberal; they are avowed anti-communists. 

 

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience. 

All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License



[premium_newsticker id="211406"]


 Don't forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days. 




Classic Cinema: The Ascent

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.




See this film and think about how degenerate American films and reality have become.  Look around and observe this huge culture bathed from top to bottom in despicable lies—everything an imposture, 24/7, a cynical falsehood that few really detect and still fewer rebel against. 

LARISA SHEPITKO

The Ascent

The crowning triumph of a career cut tragically short, the final film from Larisa Shepitko won the Golden Bear at the 1977 Berlin Film Festival and went on to be hailed as one of the finest works of late Soviet cinema. In the darkest days of World War II, two partisans set out for supplies to sustain their beleaguered outfit, braving the blizzard-swept landscape of Nazi-occupied Belorussia. When they fall into the hands of German forces and come face-to-face with death, each must choose between martyrdom and betrayal, in a spiritual ordeal that lifts the film’s earthy drama to the plane of religious allegory. With stark, visceral cinematography that pits blinding white snow against pitch-black despair, The Ascent finds poetry and transcendence in the harrowing trials of war. (From Criterion collection edition). 


More details about this haunting film.

  • The Ascent (Voskhozhdenie, 1977) – her last completed film and the one which received the most attention in the West. The actors Boris Plotnikov and Vladimir Gostyukhin gained their first major roles in the film. Adapted from a novel by Vasili Bykov, Shepitko returns to the sufferings of World War II, chronicling the trials and tribulations of a group of pro-Soviet partisans in Belarus in the bleak winter of 1942. Two of the partisans, Sotnikov and Rybak, are captured by the Wehrmacht and then interrogated by a local collaborator, played by Anatoly Solonitsyn, before four of them are executed in public. This depiction of the martyrdom of the Soviets owes much to Christian iconographyThe Ascent won the Golden Bear at the 27th Berlin International Film Festival in 1977.[11] It was also the official submission of the Soviet Union for the Best Foreign Language Film of the 50th Academy Awards in 1978, and it was included in "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" by Steven Schneider.
    • Shepitko wanted to film to adhere to the authenticity of what Soviet soldiers would have experienced during World War II. The cast derived of no-named actors whose backgrounds fit similar to how she wanted their characters to portray. The film was shot in Murom during the severe winters of Russia where temperatures reached 40 degrees below zero. Shepitko refuse any special treatment and only wore clothing that the cast wore to embody the suffering that they went through.[12]

Ukrainian Soviet film directorscreenwriter and actress. Larisa Shepitko is considered one of the best female directors of all time, and her film The Ascent was the second film directed by a woman to win a Golden Bear, and the second film directed by a woman to win a top award at a major European film festival (Cannes, Venice, Berlin). Larisa died instantly in a car crash in 1979, while scouting locations for her next film. Four members of her crew also perished in the accident.


The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.