Saeed Rahnema: For Progressive Solidarity, Against The "Reactionary Left."

For a properly rigorous assessment of the pathetically reactionary currents that have caused such stupefaction across the western liberal-left spectrum in recent years, with particular reference to solidarity with the Iranian uprising, here's Saeed Rahnema.

The upshot: "The left has historically been rooted in solidarity with progressive movements, women's rights and rights for unions and its voice has been first and foremost a call for freedom. The voices that we hear today from part of the Left are tragically reactionary. Siding with religious fundamentalists with the wrong assumptions that they are anti-imperialists and anti-capitalists, is aligning with the most reactionary forces of history. This is a reactionary left, different from the progressive left which has always been on the side of the forces of progress."

It's like I've been saying. Here, and here, and here.

Rahnema is of a tragically rare species. He's an unapologetically left-wing sort of intellectual who conducts his work in the rigorous academic tradition that demands evidence of analysis and eschews fashionably transgressive revisionism. Even when he wades into unfamiliar territory and gets his history skewed, as he does in this debate with former NATO ambassador Gordon Smith, Rahnema's conclusions are dead right:

"One policy which is lurking around these days is the search for ‘good’ Islamist fundamentalists. The policy of rapprochement with ‘good’ Taliban, which points to the miserable failures of the American, Canadian and other NATO allies in Afghanistan, is misguided. It involves major concessions and compromises to these backward elements, and has serious implications for human rights – among them the rights of women. In terms of zealotry and ruthlessness, there are few differences between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and indeed among the Taliban themselves."

The upshot: "Empowering secular, progressive forces is the only solution to this ordeal."

On the ongoing agony in Israel and Palestine: "The only solution to this conflict is a negotiated settlement. But history has so far shown that peace is not possible as long as hawkish Israeli governments come into power and have the unconditional support of the United States and the Israeli lobby. Likewise, no peace is possible as long as radical Palestinians - in particular, religious zealots and their supporters inside and outside the Palestinian territories - are not ready to recognize the reality of the existence of the state of Israel within the pre-1967 borders."

That is rather better than demonizing Israel, pandering to the delicate, bourgeois sensibilities of the liberal-left elites and laying the blame for the world's ills solely at the feet of shadowy Zionists, no?