"Quite frankly, I think that the so-called "solidarity" with the "downtrodden masses" of the Middle East is a bunch of nonsense - ritualistic mantras created and repeated mainly by Western intellectuals. In reality, there is no such thing as masses, downtrodden or otherwise - in the Middle Eastor elsewhere - only different interest groups pursuing their own interests defined in their own terms and picking their own battles in the name of those interests. If Western intellectuals take sides in these battles, it is almost certainly to use them as proxies in their own battles against other Western intellectuals - quite similar to the "proxy" war that the Bush administration and the Iranian government fight in Lebanon." ============================== I think it is still possible to discern a fundamental divide between the masses and the elites, between the ruling class and those without power and (large-scale) property, with such divisions primarily reflected in struggles over tax and spending policies. The masses everywhere want the wealthy to support state spending on job creation programs, health, education, social welfare and other benefits. What your interests dictate in relation to state taxation and spending policies is a pretty good indicator of what side of the class divide you are on.
Of course, the masses are also internally divided by race, religion, language, gender, region, income and skill levels etc. - and organize on the basis, as you rightly note, to pursue "their own interests defined in their own terms..."
As a rule, I think these independent pursuits are more pronounced in periods of relative stability and prosperity than in exceptional periods of crisis brought on by war or depression or natural disaster when circumstances typically require these narrower sectoral interests to be subordinated to the general interest of reviving the economy or restoring physical security. In recent times, however, we have seen how in less homogenous states where there is a roughly equal distribution of national or ethnic or linguistic groups, ie. Yugoslavia and Iraq, crisis conditions are just as likely to exacerbate these underlying divisions as to overcome them.
As to your related point, I personally don't find it difficult to choose sides in the Middle East. I believe strongly in the principle of national self-determination, so I support Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iraqi resistance forces which are fighting the occupying US and Israeli armies. I also have some sympathy for these organizations because they are based on the poorer classes and are consequently for economic development and income redistribution. For the same reasons, I'm opposed to their opponents: the undemocratic elites in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region which lack popular legitimacy and whose ability to govern rests solely on their ties to the US and other foreign powers.
Of course, if I lived in these societies, I would choose between the secular left parties who are also opposed to foreign intervention ahead of the Islamist ones who are now leading these struggles. The Palestinian Marwan Barghouti, for example, is someone with whom I identify politically from a distance, although unfortunately his physical circumstances - serving a life sentance in an Israeli prison - and the ascent of Hamas and the other Islamist parties have much reduced his influence and others like him. This is what makes the politics of contemporary national liberation struggles so much more complicated for the international left than in the days when it was in the forefront of the fight against Western imperialism, and there was little cause for equivocation in choosing sides.