Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

Xi says China, Vietnam should sail together on same ship of socialism – Xinhua

Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and Chinese president, meets with Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh in Hanoi, capital of Vietnam, Dec. 13, 2023. (Xinhua/Pang Xinglei)

HANOI, Dec. 13 (Xinhua) -- Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and Chinese president, said here on Wednesday that China and Vietnam should sail together on the same ship of socialism.

In his meeting with Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh, Xi said both sides should be alert to and oppose any attempts to mess up Asia-Pacific, strengthen coordination and cooperation in international affairs and jointly maintain a favorable external environment.

Xi said that Nguyen Phu Trong, general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee, and he jointly announced building a China-Vietnam community with a shared future that carries strategic significance, opening a new chapter in bilateral ties.

Xi said he believes it will bring greater benefits to the two peoples and make positive contributions to peace, stability and development of the region and the world.

For his part, Pham Minh Chinh said Vietnam-China relations have withstood the test of time and history and will not be affected by any interference provoked by external forces.

Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and Chinese president, meets with Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh in Hanoi, capital of Vietnam, Dec. 13, 2023. (Xinhua/Pang Xinglei)

Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and Chinese president, meets with Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh in Hanoi, capital of Vietnam, Dec. 13, 2023. (Xinhua/Shen Hong)

Read the original post:
Xi says China, Vietnam should sail together on same ship of socialism - Xinhua

Tags:

Understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – Socialist Party

Launching the second of our Introduction to Marxism series, Judy Beishon traces the roots of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the current brutal war on Gaza. This is a shortened version of the original article which can be read in full at socialismtoday.org

The worlds imperialist powers have always intervened in the Middle East for their own political, strategic and economic interests. On the one hand dishing out investment, aid, trade deals and promises of protection, and on the other hand threats, sanctions and military force, they have extracted what they can for themselves, to the detriment of the regions peoples. The Israel-Arab conflict arose out of imperialist interference following the first world war, and in the century since has seen 13 wars and much other bloodshed in between.

In the feudal period, the caliphates encompassing the Palestinians and other Arab territories were eventually conquered by the Turkish Ottoman empire. That empire fell apart following military defeats before and during the first world war and the Middle East was carved up between the imperialist victors. The plans to grab control had included the 1916 Sykes-Picot secret deal between Britain and France, for Britain to take control of Palestine and Jordan, and France to take Syria and Lebanon. It broke a British promise previously made to Arab leaders that they would have their own state in those areas.

Through that deal and other imperialist treaties, Britain ruled Palestine after the first world war until it withdrew at the time of the creation of Israel in 1948. The way had been paved for an Israeli state by the 1917 Balfour declaration, an undertaking by Britains foreign minister Arthur Balfour to view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

This was a great gift to the Zionist movement that was campaigning for a Jewish state in Palestine. But it was a massive blow to Palestines Arabs, around 90% of the population, then under British colonial rule with no promise of their own state. Jewish immigration increased, causing growing alarm to the Arabs. They broke out in mass rebellion in 1936-39 and were brutally suppressed by British forces. During that revolt, in 1937 British imperialism proposed that a small Jewish state be created in Palestine.

In the early twentieth century most of the politically active Jews were not looking towards Zionism but rather to workers organisations and struggles. The goal of the Zionists, a small minority of Jews worldwide, wasnt to fight antisemitism and campaign for the rights of Jews in Europe, but rather to escape from it, an ideology that became boosted by the failure of workers movements across Europe to emulate the Russian revolution and remove capitalism.

Following the rise to power of Hitler in 1933 in Germany, support for Zionism increased. Unsurprisingly, the horror under Hitler of the holocaust the slaughter of six million Jews along with many socialists, trade unionists, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people, and others was widely viewed as further grounds for Zionism.

In the two years following the end of the second world war, British forces reached a crisis in their divide and rule strategy in Palestine. They tried to limit Jewish immigration, to which Jewish militias responded with sabotage and terrorist acts. The Zionist revolt against British rule sent shockwaves worldwide in July 1946 when the Irgun militia blew up part of Jerusalems King David hotel, being used by British personnel, killing 91 people. In 1947, with Britains Atlee government unable to stabilise the wasps nest of Palestine, as British chancellor Hugh Dalton described it, the United Nations (UN) voted to partition Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. That decision wasnt only due to a false perspective of trying to stabilise Palestine; US imperialism also saw it as a destination for hundreds of thousands of post-war Jewish refugees who were being rejected by countries across Europe, and by the US too.

Palestines Arabs reacted with outrage to that imperialist edict. At the same time the Zionists were eager to grab as much land for their new state as possible. Civil war broke out, in which Jewish forces led by the Haganah militia seized territory, leading to them announcing the State of Israel in May 1948.

In a second phase of the war, the new Israeli state fought off an invasion against it by five Arab armies. By 1949 Israel had taken more land than the UN had designated to it, Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt had the Gaza Strip. The monstrous injustice had been inflicted of Palestine being wiped off the map, with around 750,000 Palestinians displaced from their homes, becoming refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel and surrounding countries. Palestinians call that terrible expulsion their Naqba, catastrophe in Arabic.

Leon Trotsky, in the month before he was murdered by Stalins agents in 1940, had warned that a Jewish state in Palestine could be a bloody trap for Jews, as the land was already inhabited. That has been tragically borne out, for Palestinians as well as Jews.

In 1949 Israel obtained armistice agreements with its four Arab neighbours: Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Its population grew rapidly due to immigration. By no means were all the post-war immigrants Zionists; a lot had nowhere else to go.

Israel from its birth was based on capitalist relations. After an initial post-war economic crisis its economy grew, spurred on by reparations from Germany, foreign investors and US aid. It benefitted greatly from the high profit and investment rates during the post-war world economic boom.

The economy was also developed through a high degree of nurturing by the state. The state and the Histadrut (General Organisation of Workers in Israel) between them employed 40% of the countrys workers in the 1950s and the state gave subsidies to other major corporations. But this was no form of socialism, as finance minister Levi Eshkol stressed in 1957: What is our regime? It is a regime of preparing the way and paving the road for private capital, provided only it exists and wants to come here. Eshkol was a leader of the political party Mapai which led all the Israeli governments for the first three decades, pro-capitalist throughout, firstly as Mapai and from 1968 as the Israeli Labour Party. In parallel with growing the economy was the building of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) armed with hi-tech weaponry, including an unpublicised nuclear capacity.

US imperialism came to have increasing political interest in aiding Israel as part of its strategy in the post-war cold war between the US-dominated western capitalist powers and the Stalinist eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union (USSR), a standoff between two antagonistic economic systems. The Middle East was of interest to both superpowers, not least because of its oil reserves and geographical importance for trade. They were jostling for influence in what was a period of tumult and regime change across that region. The USSR sought to gain influence in Arab nationalist regimes that came to power, including making an arms deal with the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt in 1955, who was balancing between the capitalist west and the Soviet bloc.

Western imperialism wanted to counter that influence, and in any case saw the left-wing Nasser regime and its great appeal to the Arab masses as a major threat. Nasser ruled autocratically and stayed within the boundaries of capitalism, but in what was a revolutionary process that impacted across the Middle East, he adopted aspects of socialist ideology combined with Arab nationalism. His regime redistributed land from the top landowners to the rural poor, nationalised the Suez canal and other British and French owned companies in Egypt, and delivered an unprecedented level of public services to the Egyptian masses. Therefore, Western imperialism saw staunchly pro-Western imperialist Israel as an important base of support for its interests against the challenge that Nasserism posed.

The so-called Jewish lobby in the US was also a factor in US-Israel relations and still is today, with US capitalists from a Jewish background having links with Israeli big business, and US workers with a Jewish background having an influence in the US electorally.

Israels ruling class, on its part wanted US aid and also protection; it feared the arming by the USSR of hostile Arab regimes. It developed a history of aiding US interests in the Middle East and other areas of the world with intelligence and military coordination.

However, the 1956 Suez war wasnt welcomed by US imperialism. In October 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai peninsula, quickly backed up by British and French military forces, to try to seize control of the Suez canal and remove Nasser. Fury erupted on the Arab streets and from other workers internationally, including a 30,000 strong rally against the war in London (the biggest demonstration to that point since 1945). The US was desperate to prevent disruption to oil supplies and other trade, and a spread of the war the USSR was threatening to intervene so piled pressure on the invaders to pull out. The result was a humiliating withdrawal for British and French imperialism, followed by Israel pulling out of Sinai.

In 1967, following the build-up of further tension and clashes between Israel and neighbouring countries, a new war was being prepared on both sides. After receiving a green light from the US, on 5 June Israel launched military attacks on Egypt, Syria and Jordan, in what became known as the Six-Day War. The Israeli forces had dramatic and unexpected success, gaining control of the West Bank, east Jerusalem, Gaza, the Golan Heights and Sinai from Jordan, Egypt and Syria. As well it being the start of Israels occupation, the war created around 400,000 Palestinian refugees, some for the second time.

In November 1967 the UN Security Council passed its well-known resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the areas taken. But with the exception of Sinai they remain occupied by Israel to this day. Over and over again Israel has been accused by human rights organisations among others, including many groups on the left, of violating international law, but the entire history of the conflict has shown how inconsequential those appeals are. That law is a creation of the imperialist powers and attempts to enforce it can only be made by their nation state military forces. In the case of Israel, on balance it hasnt been in their interests to enforce it and Israels rulers know that.

Within months of the six-day war Israel started building Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, along with developing a regime of brutal repression against the Palestinians living there. Virtually every aspect of their lives became controlled by Israel, with harsh and deadly punishments for transgressions. Many bloody raids have been carried out by the IDF into West Bank towns and Gaza over the years and assassinations carried out of Palestinian militia leaders and fighters. Time has been spent in Israeli prisons by 40% of the male population in the territories, with thousands detained at any one time, including many without trial.

A group of Palestinians formed Fatah, a reverse acronym for Palestinian National Liberation Movement in the late 1950s, led by Yasser Arafat. By 1969 Fatah was the dominant party in the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), an umbrella for numerous Palestinian organisations, mainly secular, that developed mass support in the Palestinian diaspora. The PLO promoted Palestinian identity and awareness of the Palestinians plight. It carried out armed attacks against Israelis military and infrastructure. At the same time, however, terrorist acts carried out in the 1970s by various PLO factions repelled many workers internationally from its methods. Those acts included hijacking planes, killing Israeli school children, and taking hostage and killing Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich summer Olympics.

The PLO called for one secular Palestinian state with equal rights for Jews within it, but didnt regard them as having collective rights as Jews. Some of its component organisations were influenced by Stalinism, with some receiving aid from the Soviet Union and China. In tune with Stalinist ideology they relegated the struggle for socialism to a stage after Palestinian liberation. However, not only were the PLOs methods of struggle not going to achieve Palestinian liberation, neither was it possible to achieve it on a capitalist basis. The Israeli capitalist class has never been willing to allow the existence of a neighbouring independent Palestinian state with control over its own borders and resources, fearing that it would elect leaders very hostile to its own interests.

Also, no type of capitalist Palestinian entity will ever be able to provide decent living standards for its population. Where in the world does any capitalist ruling class in todays conditions of capitalist decline consistently provide rising living standards for any class in society but those at the top? Least of all in an area without an industrial base and with a history of bloodshed.

In any case, the Arab regimes, based on capitalism too, have always exerted strong counter-revolutionary influence on the PLO through financing and hosting it. On the one hand their elites try to portray themselves as being as angry as the masses across the Middle East at the plight of the Palestinians, while on the other hand it is in their interests to obstruct any moves towards building the only forces that can end the occupation: working-class-based organisations in the occupied territories and in Israel.

In October 1973 the Yom Kippur war began on the Jewish religious day of that name. Egypt and Syria launched an unexpected but failed military offensive on Israel to regain their lost territories, with the assistance of a number of other Arab countries. Reflecting the cold war, the Soviet Union was arming the Arab combatants, and after the Yom Kippur war the US started seriously to boost Israels arms.

Following the war, Saudi Arabia led an Arab boycott of oil exports to the countries that had supported Israel during it, causing a tripling of the oil price over the following five months. That impacted on a world economy already showing signs of a fall back from the heady years of the post second world war boom. Global recession set in, and Israels economy was badly affected.

By the early 1980s it still hadnt recovered. In 1983, the share price of the largest banks collapsed, and the government resorted to nationalising them. In 1984 inflation reached 445%. A short-lived national unity government introduced a neoliberal stabilisation plan in 1985 that cut government spending, held down workers wages and devalued the currency, among other measures. The government and its successors then embarked on a massive bonanza for the rich through the privatisation of state-owned corporations, including eventually returning the banks into capitalist hands.

Approaching Israels 1977 general election, its Labour government, which since 1974 had been led by Yitzhak Rabin, was still being blamed for being taken unawares by the Yom Kippur war, and there was anger over corruption scandals at the top. The worsening economy made disenchantment with Labour even greater, especially among Israels Mizrahi Jews, whose background is from the Middle East, North Africa and Asia, and Sephardic Jews who originate from around the Mediterranean. They had always suffered discrimination at the hands of Israels Ashkenazi Jews, mainly originating from central and eastern Europe, who were dominant in Labour.

In the 1977 election many Mizrahim and Sephardim voted for the right-wing party Likud, helping the right to come to power for the first time, as a Likud-led coalition. This had consequences for the occupation. The Israeli right have usually rejected any compromise over territory and claim that Israel has the right to all of Judea and Samaria, the biblical names for the West Bank, and Gaza too. Once in power, they accelerated the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank with the aim of a Greater Israel.

Menachem Begin, who led the Irgun militia in 1943-48, was the Israeli prime minister at the head of Likud in 1977. Begin oversaw the Camp David accords signed in 1978 and 1979 with Egypts president Anwar Sadat. In return for Egypt accepting Israels existence and allowing it to use the Suez canal, Begin withdrew Israel from Sinai, which the Israeli right didnt regard as part of the Land of Israel.

In 1987 the Palestinians in the occupied territories erupted spontaneously in a massive protest movement that lasted for six years and came to be known as the first intifada. The entire population took part in mass demonstrations and strikes. The IDF responded to the unarmed crowds with rubber bullets, water cannon, tear gas and gunfire. It also resorted to curfews, detentions, closure of schools, house demolitions, torture and deportations.

But as author Avi Shlaim wrote: The intifada accomplished more in its first few months than decades of PLO military operations. At least some of Israels leaders began to concede that military power has its limits, and that there could be no military solution to what is essentially a political problem.

The PLO leaders in Tunis had played no role in the outbreak of the intifada but they intervened to gain leadership of it. Under pressure from the Palestinians for an end to the occupation, the PLO decided in 1988 to recognise the existence of the Israeli state and officially adopted a two-state solution: for the occupied territories to become a Palestinian state, alongside Israel. That proposition was quickly rejected by Yitzhak Shamir, Likuds successor after Begin.

The collapse of Stalinism and return of capitalism across the USSR and eastern Europe in 1989-91 profoundly changed world relations. It opened up a period in which US imperialism was able to play a dominant role globally and the Middle East elites could no longer manoeuvre between two different economic systems. A major show of the rapidly changing relations was the coalition put together by the US against Saddam Husseins Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The coalition encompassed 42 countries, including the Soviet Union, the Western powers and many of the Arab states.

To keep the Arab countries on board, the US excluded Israel from the coalition, though Israel gave back-up support. Just two months into that first Gulf war the IDF killed 19 Palestinians in Jerusalem, which jeopardised the coalition because it exposed US imperialisms different approaches to the Iraqi occupation of oil-rich Kuwait and the Israeli occupation that it was brushing aside.

Trying to paper over those obvious double standards was one of the USs reasons for pushing for Israel-Palestine peace talks after the war. But the overriding reason was that the first intifada was still raging, with military repression not subduing it, so the US and Israeli leaders were seeking to head it off through talks. They were also hoping to cut across Palestinian militias in the territories based on right-wing political Islam that were becoming more combative.

In October 1991 talks began in Madrid and multiple rounds followed in Washington. Despite the fact that Shamir was conceding virtually nothing, his governing coalition in Israel lost its majority when two ultra-nationalist parties resigned in opposition to the talks. In the subsequent general election in June 1992, Israels electorate brought to power a Labour-led government headed by Rabin on the basis of him promising a deal for Palestinian autonomy. That election result reflected the desire of ordinary Israelis for an end to repeated conflict, which has been expressed many times over the decades, for example in a 100,000-strong peace demonstration in Tel Aviv in 1978 on the eve of the Camp David accord, or the 90% support for withdrawing Israeli troops from Lebanon in 1985.

The Washington talks were going nowhere, but a separate channel started secretly in Oslo for the first time directly with the PLO which led to the 1993 Oslo accord. It partly ended direct occupation but opened up a period of major disappointment and increased bloodshed because conditions for the Palestinians only worsened. It led to a Palestinian Authority (PA) being set up to administer part of the Gaza strip and just 18% of the West Bank, in 14 disconnected areas. The IDF continued to invade Palestinian areas; and Jewish settlements with their supporting infrastructure were expanded, imposing facts on the ground to make a Palestinian state seem impossible. The accord didnt even mention a Palestinian state, which for Rabin as for every leading Israeli pro-capitalist politician wasnt on offer.

Today there are around 670,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Most of them live in the settlements for financial reasons housing there is less expensive than in Israel but a minority do so for the ideological purpose of colonising West Bank land, with mobs of them regularly inflicting atrocities on Palestinian villages to try to expel the residents.

The PA, firstly led by Arafat, and later by his Fatah successor Mahmood Abbas, is condemned by Palestinians as corrupt, with enrichment by those at the top while ordinary people live in poverty. It acts in collaboration with Israels security and military forces, as a first line of repressive policing. Today the PA is so unpopular that President Abbas has refused to call legislative elections for 17 years, knowing that Fatah wont be re-elected.

After the collapse of Stalinism, Fatah had turned to the Western capitalist powers for aid and looked towards them to put pressure on Israel to make concessions. But the Western capitalists have never had any genuine concern for the peoples in the region. The terrible devastation inflicted by coalitions led by the US and UK on the people of Afghanistan from 2001 and Iraq from 2003 is a reminder of that.

US imperialisms alliance with the Israeli ruling class limits US interventions for concessions towards the Palestinians, though at times US presidents have felt compelled to exert some pressure on Israel, reflecting pressure on them to do so.

In November 1995 Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing religious Jew who opposed the Oslo deal. Shimon Peres took over but then lost the May 1996 general election to Likuds Benjamin Netanyahu, who proceeded to undermine the paltry results of Oslo. Peres had been 20% ahead in the polls but Netanyahu gained an advantage from several suicide bombings that killed 67 Israelis, carried out by Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas in opposition to Oslo.

Hamas, based on right-wing political Sunni Islam, was founded soon after the start of the first intifada and provided charitable services like health and education. Through its armed wing it came to be seen by many Palestinians as a leader of the fight against the occupation because of its combative approach and opposition to Oslo, in contrast to the inaction of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.

However, its actions arent under democratic control, and while its atrocities against civilians draw attention to the oppression of the Palestinians and show the desperation of the young Palestinians who join the militias committing them, they cannot defeat the Israeli state with its massive military superiority. In every case they serve the interests of the Israeli right and the whole agenda of the Israeli capitalist class and its political representatives. The latter can point to the killings to step up their nationalist and racist propaganda and draw a large layer of the Israeli population behind the use of massive firepower with the false aim of delivering security.

This certainly doesnt mean the Palestinians should renounce arms. On the contrary, they have the right to armed resistance against the brutality they are up against. But their resistance needs to take the form of mass struggle and actions under the control of democratically elected popular committees of the working class and poor; and be directed against the occupation and not Israeli civilians. They would then be building the most effective means of struggle, and by targeting the forces and infrastructure of the occupation they would be better able to appeal to Israeli workers to oppose the military slaughters carried out by the Israeli state and gain the ear of a layer of them. This would be part of a process of helping to expose the class divide in Israel and of creating links between the Palestinian masses in the occupied territories and the working class in Israel.

More talks with the PLO in 1999 back at Camp David ended in failure. Desperation at their terrible conditions, together with frustration and despair following Oslo, led to the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000. The trigger was a mega provocation by the then Likud leader Ariel Sharon. He walked into the Noble Sanctuary the third most important religious site in the world for Muslims, containing the al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock. To Jews it is the Temple Mount, once the site of Jewish temples.

Palestinian anger erupted, initially as an unarmed popular uprising. Ahron Bregman, in his book Cursed Victory, argues convincingly that Israeli strategists wanted to transform it into a violent insurgency so they could take advantage of Israels military capacity. The IDF fired a staggering 1.3 million bullets during the intifadas first month and did indeed manage gradually to transform the Palestinian civilian uprising into an armed insurgency in which guns replaced stones.

The IDF sent in tanks, attack helicopters and fighter jets. So this intifada had a different character to the first one. Mass action became superseded by individual and group terror attacks, with Israeli civilians targeted. This again played into the hands of right-wing reactionaries in Israel and led to Sharon winning the 2001 election. Its worth noting, though, that to take into account the desire for peace in Israel, Sharon promised to pursue peace talks, a gross deception as he didnt ever start moves towards a final status settlement for the Palestinian territories.

The settlements expansion continued, and it was Sharons government that began construction of a massive security wall inside the West Bank that annexed a strip of West Bank land into Israel.

In 2003 came the intrusion of then British Labour prime minister Tony Blair, who spearheaded a road map from the quartet formed by the UN, the European Union, UK and US. Then later in 2003 came a separate initiative the Geneva Accord. Sharon made sure these limited interventions went nowhere and turned to superseding them with a plan of his own: unilateral disengagement from Gaza.

That went ahead in 2005, with the removal of settlers from the Gaza Strip, not as a concession to the Palestinians but to remove the settlements that were the most difficult and costly to protect and to turn the strip into a blockaded prison. His senior advisor, Dov Weiglass, bluntly said: The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Israels ruling class was concluding that the Palestinians couldnt be subdued militarily, the occupation was expensive, and relative birth rates would result in Palestinians outnumbering Jews in all the land controlled by Israel, so a forced separation was in the best interests of Israel, not least to keep it as a mainly Jewish state.

It shouldnt have been a surprise to anyone that Hamas won the PA elections in 2006, under the banner change and reform, in what was a crushing defeat for Fatah. US agents in collaboration with Israel intervened to try to prevent Hamas from being any part of the PA leadership. They encouraged Fatah into a violent power struggle with Hamas. The resulting clashes led to Hamas ruling in Gaza, and Fatah continuing to control the West Bank.

The blockade of Gaza was stepped up, along with regular missile strikes on Palestinian fighters and civilians inside the strip, killing around ten times more Gazans than the number of Israeli civilians who were being killed by rocket fire into Israel from various Palestinian militias.

At the end of 2008 the IDF went to war on Gaza, in Operation Cast Lead, aimed at crushing Hamas. The three-week war killed more than 1,000 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.

Further terrible wars on Gaza were carried out in 2012, 2014, 2021 and 2023, repulsively dubbed mowing the grass by Israeli military figures. Each time the IDF inflicted mass slaughter and terror. None of the wars can wipe out Hamas, as its ideology can live on through a layer of the Palestinian population.

This history of the conflict has been written in November 2023 with the worst war yet on Gaza taking place. Before it, the death toll in the conflict from the year 2000 was 10,655 Palestinians and 1,330 Israelis. Both those figures doubled in the space of just five weeks and the former could treble or more. Terrible devastation, displacement and trauma have been inflicted on the trapped population in the Gaza strip.

The unprecedented attack by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Israeli military bases and residential areas on 7 October 2023 sent a massive shockwave across Israel. Great anger was directed at Netanyahus government for not having prevented it, the sixth government led by Netanyahu, with two of the most far-right parties being part of his coalition. They openly incite racial division, threaten Muslim prayer at the Noble Sanctuary /Temple Mount and desire further expulsion of Palestinians from all the land they claim as Jewish.

Israel is a capitalist, class-based society with the second-highest level of inequality in the industrially developed world. Living standards for a majority of Israelis have been eroded by low wages, exorbitant housing costs, inflation, and cuts in services and benefits.

There have been a great many workers strikes including some general strikes and community-based struggles. In 2011 a mass movement broke out against the housing crisis and extended to other issues, inspired by the uprisings that shook the Arab countries that year. From December 2017 large protests were regularly staged against Netanyahu over corruption charges against him, and from January 2023 a nine month mass movement began the largest ever against the government curbing the powers of the judiciary. There have also been many struggles by minorities in Israel, including among Palestinian citizens of Israel, Ethiopian Jews and Bedouin.

Ordinary Israelis are certainly not happy with the state of their country and the number emigrating is high. Middle East Monitor reported that the most common words in Google searches in Israel had become moving out (6 October 2023). Support for the Labour Party has haemorrhaged away over the last three decades and there is disillusionment towards all the main political parties.

Each war has meant spikes upwards in the siege mentality inside Israel, drawing Israelis into supporting the use of military might. Some left organisations wrongly believe this will always be the case that nationalism in the Israeli working class will forever come before support for the rights of the Palestinians. But the cause and driving force of the conflict has always been the imperialist powers and Israeli ruling class and not ordinary Israelis, who have nothing to gain from it. At many times a majority have expressed support for peace processes and for the Palestinians to have their own state, but the interests of their ruling class have stepped in.

This doesnt mean the Palestinians should wait for Israeli workers to challenge Israeli capitalism. As well as the intifadas there have been many other mass mobilisations of Palestinians that point the way forward for future struggles to advance their interests, from demonstrations next to the Gaza fence in 2018-19 to strike action by public sector workers and others. A third intifada is needed, only this time organised democratically and based on socialist ideas.

Palestinian workers also need to build their own political party that can challenge the pro-capitalist parties in the West Bank and Gaza. The same is true in Israel: an Israeli mass workers party needs to be created. As no solution to the conflict is possible in keeping with the interests of the capitalists and their rotting system, those parties will need to adopt socialist programmes for the removal of capitalism. Public ownership of the main corporations and democratically controlled economic planning would mean the necessary resources could be generated to end poverty and raise living standards on both sides, using environmentally sustainable methods.

The ending of capitalism with its need for competition and markets would deliver the basis for ending the conflict. Democratically elected representatives from both sides would be able to negotiate solutions based on cooperation, in two socialist states if desired, with minority rights protected.

Today, even though there is a loss of hope that two states can be achieved, the idea of them is much more acceptable on both sides than one state, because of the huge level of distrust that has developed after decades of bloodshed and the fears of being discriminated against in one state. But it will be democratic discussion between Palestinian and Israeli workers representatives that will determine what borders there will be and where, if any.

Under capitalism, conditions for the overwhelming majority of people in the entire region are becoming worse as time goes on. The rotten, dictatorial Arab regimes need to be overthrown as well as the ruling class in Israel and the elite in the Palestine territories. A socialist confederation of the Middle East on a free and equal basis will need to be built, with all resources under the democratic control of workers and the poor.

Read more from the original source:
Understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Socialist Party

Tags:

Climate catastrophe: Theres still time, struggle for socialism – Socialist Party

Ryan Aldred, Socialist Party national committee

Human-caused global warming and climate change have been known about for decades but we are now entering a crucial period, after which the consequences of our actions, or lack thereof, could have ramifications that go well into the 2100s and beyond.

At the time of writing the outcome of the COP28 climate negotiations in Dubai are unknown. However, it is certain that the gaggle of capitalist leaders, each interested primarily in looking after the profits of their bosses at home, will not come up with an agreement which adequately deals with the scale of the crisis quickly enough.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces annual reports which give an increasingly bleak outlook based on current world trajectories in relation to a myriad of factors. The most significant worry increasingly being realised: Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards.

Human activity has already caused a 1.1oC increase in global temperatures from 1850-1900 levels. Up to 3.6 billion people live in regions or situations that are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. For millions mostly working-class and poor people, victims of forest fires, floods, droughts and other extreme weather events climate change is already catastrophic.

Climate change-driven desertification of agricultural land, for example, has awful consequences for the food supply to millions. The Economist magazine projects that spiralling food prices will push hundreds of millions into food poverty with an estimated 1.6 billion people already unable to get enough to eat.

Together with anger over government inaction responding to extreme weather events and in taking proactive measures to combat climate change, and anger over other aspects of cost-of-living crises, rising food prices or shortages can fuel upheavals. It was a major feature contributing to the upheavals of the Arab Spring in 2011, for example.

The effects of climate change will, together with all aspects of capitalist crisis, lead increasing numbers to look for an alternative.

Just 1 of 42 indicators that the world is set to limit global tempature tises to 2oC is on track, according to the World Resources Institute the share of electric cars on the road.

This is in part because the upscaling of electric vehicle manufacturing has become more profitable the primary driver for capitalist investment. However, this in itself is problematic as it has prompted a global race among superpowers to secure the rare earth elements and metals like cobalt, lithium and manganese required for their manufacture in order to corner market share.

This is resulting in increased mining, which is adding to the carbon intensity of industry, paradoxically further worsening global warming. Moreover, without a comparable shift in global infrastructure to green energy production, the shift to electric vehicles alone will not be anywhere near enough to stop the rise of, let alone reverse, carbon emissions.

According to figures produced by the World Resources Institute, low-carbon energy production has reached parity with fossil fuels. However, in order to limit global temperature rises to 1.5oC above pre-industrial levels, as set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement, low-carbon energy production needs to be in a ratio of 7:1 by 2030.

Of the other 41 metrics, which include things like the reversal of rainforest, mangrove and peatland degradation and destruction, phasing out coal, decarbonising steel production and a whole host of others, more than half are way off track and some indicators are even going in the wrong direction.

One example, is of fossil-fuel subsidies surging to a record $7 trillion, in large part driven by huge amounts of government spending to limit the effects of the cost-of-living crisis brought about by higher fuel and energy costs in the aftermath of the Ukraine war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, leading a major global energy producer, and facing an international arrest warrant for his invasion of Ukraine, visited UAE at the same time as the COP conference but didnt step foot inside. This does not signify the level of international collaboration needed to solve climate change, a global issue!

Despite the existence of global markets and corporations, capitalism was formed and continues to be based on nation states each representing the dominant interests of its ruling capitalist classes and competing for access to resources and markets. War is the sharpest expression of this inherent conflict. The world is also increasingly beset by trade wars.

No nation state wants to make commitments which undermine its own capitalists profits. The US, the biggest single contributor to climate change, had consistently refused to sign up to a number of landmark climate targets such as the Kyoto protocol. Trump pulled US commitment to the Paris Climate Agreements, rendering them largely ineffectual.

US capitalism does not want to chain itself to targets that would hinder its ability to face up to rising competition from China. China, with much less weight but which is growing, increasingly rivals declining US capitalism and has also been slow to make sweeping commitments that would have curtailed its huge economic expansion. Another big polluter and growing, India, has pledged to become carbon-neutral, but not until 2070. COP28 is being held in oil-rich UAE, with COP president Sultan Al Jaber reportedly claiming there is no science to suggest phasing out fossil fuels is the only way to achieve the change outlined in the Paris Agreement. Currently, the IPCCs greatest hope lies not in the rolling out of policies which it recognises is happening far too slowly, but instead in the eruption of a supervolcano which would give 1-3 years breathing space as the release of sulphur from volcanic plumes into the atmosphere would have a cooling effect on the planet, delaying the onset of runaway global warming.

Here in Britain, weve seen no bucking of world trends, with the Conservatives ditching a plethora of green policies and commitments over the course of the last 13 years in government.

David Camerons ending of solar subsidies and energy efficiency schemes were only the tip of the iceberg as he did away with what he referred to as green crap. Despite the stark warnings of academics and climate activists, Rishi Sunak recently rolled back on the pledge to ban petrol and diesel car production to 2035, with a further delay in the phasing out of fossil fuel boilers and a moving of the target of reaching net zero by 2050 down the list of UK priorities.

Similarly, when he was mayor of London, Boris Johnsons introduction of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone, which has been subsequently expanded under Labours Sadiq Khan, has seen what is effectively a regressive tax with the poorest and least able to afford to replace their non-compliant cars hit the hardest. Meanwhile, the biggest polluters, including the manufacturers of non-compliant cars, have been let completely off the hook.

Labour under Keir Starmer has been quick to jettison what was, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively modest set of green policies set out by Jeremy Corbyn. Determined to try to show Labours reliability as a safe pair of hands for capitalism, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves announced back in June that Labour would be delaying its plans for an annual fund of 28 billion for green investment and jobs until the middle of the next parliament.

It was recently leaked by sources close to Starmer that the plan was to scrap the green investment fund completely, although Labour is now claiming this is one pledge they wont renege on. For them, appearing fiscally responsible in the aftermath of a series of disastrous Tory-led governments, is a higher priority than addressing the looming climate crisis.

According to the science, there is still time to not only limit but avoid absolute climate catastrophe. At the 2023 Climate in Action conference it was universally agreed among the scientific advisors that not only harm reduction but even reversal of damage done was possible, if only the political will was there.

The window is very quickly tightening and with each passing year that we veer wildly off track, the challenge becomes steeper. But it remains surmountable.

What is needed, and is increasingly being sought out, is a systemic alternative. Capitalism continues to demonstrate that it is incapable of bringing about change with the speed and scale needed, at the necessary planning and coordination. That is only possible with the socialist transformation of society internationally.

Last year, British Petroleum alone made 23 billion in profit. If the commanding heights of the economy, including big oil and big energy, were brought under democratic public ownership, with no compensation to the fat-cat owners, resources and investment could be planned to very quickly end reliance on fossil fuels.

Likewise, a mass programme of eco-friendly council house building, built with the highest energy efficiency ratings and fitted with heat pumps, would not only begin to address the housing crisis but would begin to tackle the one-third of emissions produced from buildings, which come primarily from space heating and cooking. The rental income coming into local authority coffers instead of the pockets of big landlords could then provide revenue for councils to roll out an environmentally friendly retrofitting scheme for heat pumps and other green alternatives.

Ultimately, with profits being the main driving factor in capitalist economies, coupled with the geopolitical rivalries which are ratcheting up, capitalism offers no way forward in the face of the escalating climate catastrophe which is unfolding. With a socialist plan of production organised under the democratic control and management of workers, we could strip away the unnecessary duplication, wastefulness and overproduction which currently exists under capitalism.

With nationalisation of railways and buses, and an overhaul of services to ensure they are fully electrified and run on renewable energy, high-quality, reliable, safe and free public transport could be provided.

Combining this with the expansion of services, which have been whittled away due to austerity and cost-cutting by privatisers, this would massively aid cutting down on the need to use petrol and diesel cars, without resorting to punishing and regressive carbon taxes.

With an end to fossil fuel industry subsidies, and by investing in green jobs, we could see a reduction in carbon intensity to sectors like the steel industry which, nationalised under working-class control, could ensure the protection of jobs and, where necessary, the transferring of skills to producing other socially useful products and technology that can aid in the pursuit of environmental sustainability.

The desire for fundamental change is being increasingly expressed with the demands for system change that have increasingly become a feature of climate strikes and demonstrations in the recent period. The encroaching climate catastrophe can be averted, but it is dependent on winning support for the socialist programme needed. Join the Socialist Party to help us fight for it.

Climate change can be averted without needing to resort to the building of new nuclear reactors. Some have begun revisiting the question of nuclear as a so-called renewable option due to nuclear reactors not producing CO2 or other greenhouse gases.

However, leaving aside the risk of another incident like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima, which have all had environmental impacts over decades, nuclear technology has a whole host of other problems. They are slow and expensive to build with Hinckley Point C in Somerset predicted to be over ten years over schedule, costing over an estimated 25 billion once it is built. It will equally be expensive and will take a long time to fully decommission once it has reached the end of its life cycle.

The other major problem with nuclear fission technology is that spent reactor fuel remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years, and the only viable solution has been to store and bury it, and leave it to decay away.

Originally posted here:
Climate catastrophe: Theres still time, struggle for socialism - Socialist Party

Tags:

The Farce of the Two-State Solution and the Socialist Perspective for Palestine – Left Voice

As Israel continues its assault on Gaza, with more than 18,000 people already killed, the whole world is discussing what a just solution to the conflict could look like. Imperialist governments keep repeating the same proposal they have made for more than 30 years (and really since the Peel Commission of 1937): the so-called two-state solution. U.S. president Biden claims that a two-state solution is the only way to guarantee the long-term security of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. UK prime minister Rishi Sunak and French president Emmanuel Macron are similarly calling for concrete steps toward a Palestinian state.

As the three decades since the Oslo Accords have shown, the two-state solution is no solution at all. The Palestinian West Bank has been cut into tiny enclaves by Israeli settlements. Far-right settlers have uninterruptedly built heavily fortified encampments with the support of the Israeli military, in order to make any kind of contiguous Palestinian territory impossible. The 1993 accords were intended to devolve some of the IDFs administrative duties to a collaborator regime in certain areas, while Israeli settlers colonized the rest of the West Bank and Gaza.

Even if it were possible to proclaim some kind of formally independent Palestinian state in the borders of 1967, such a state would remain desperately poor and totally subservient to the state of Israel, with no control over its own borders. Biden claims that two states would ensure equal measures of freedom and dignity, but as the experience with the Palestinian Authority has shown, it would at most give a liberal cover to the existing inequality and discriminationit would be an Israeli colony akin to the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa.

More than 5 million Palestinian refugees live outside Palestine. They all have a basic democratic right to return to their homeland. They cant all be crammed into the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli Jews make up a minority of the people of Palestine, yet the 1948 borders assigned them 78 percent of the territory. This two-state solution would thus just constitute a different form of apartheid from the one currently practicedit would either trap Palestinian refugees in a ghetto or reject their rights entirely.

The two-state solution has never been more than an empty phrase used by imperialist governments to stall for time while Zionist settlers colonize the remainder of Palestinian land. Socialists around the world agree that this two-state solution is a farce designed to placate liberals while the Israeli government continues its program of ethnic cleansing. But what does an alternative look like? Should socialists call for one state or two states? Can there be any kind of solution to the conflict on a capitalist basis?

In this article, we will argue that a program of permanent revolution, with the aim of a unified socialist Palestine, is the only realistic option for ending the conflict. We are going to debate specifically with Trotskyist tendencies.

The early Trotskyists in Palestine opposed partition. Speaking with Jewish workers, they called for common class war with our Arab brothers; a war which is an inseparable link of the anti-imperialist war of the oppressed masses in all the Arab East and the entire world.

The Palestinian Trotskyists were mostly anti-Zionist Jews, and they called for a Socialist Federation of the Middle East that would guarantee equal rights for all peoples. This was what communists in Palestine had fought for going back to 1920. Yet Stalin, in one of his many betrayals, supported the partition of Palestine and gave military support to Zionism. The Trotskyists were therefore the only ones to continue the communist tradition. In the 1960s and 1970s, new radical left movements like the Israeli Socialist Organization (Matzpen), working alongside Palestinian leftists like the DFLP, continued this fight for a socialist Palestine based on equality.

The Trotskyists around the world consistently fought all forms of racism, antisemitism, and colonial oppression. During World War II, Trotskyists fought for the imperialist countries to open their borders to Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe. The Zionists, in contrast, were interested only in founding a state in Palestine and thus refused to give any support to refugees headed anywhere else.

In the years after World War, the Fourth International, which had been founded by Trotsky, degenerated and collapsed. There are now many tendencies that trace their tradition back to Trotsky, yet many have given up the historical program and defend opportunist positions. This is reflected in the Palestinian question as well, and different Trotskyist tendencies fall far short of their programmatic heritage.

Some socialists today believe that a just solution to the conflict can be provided by two states for two peoples, provided that these states are socialist. This position is defended by different organizations in the tradition of the South African Trotskyist Ted Grant, including International Socialist Alternative (ISA), the Committee for a Workers International (CWI), and the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), among others. The ISA is the only Trotskyist tendency at the moment with a functioning group in Israel, the Socialist Struggle Movement, known in Hebrew as Maavak.

All these organizations, with slight variations, have called for a socialist two-state solution. In a long article from 2013, Judy Beishon of the CWI argues for two statesa socialist Palestine and a socialist Israel on the basis of an equal right of self-determination for both peoples. The socialist two-state solution has all the same problems as the imperialist version: How could a socialist solution involve giving a huge majority of the territory to a minority of the people living in historical Palestine? Yet for the CWI, the essential question is formulating a program that is acceptable to the masses current consciousness, and they claim that the idea of two states would meet with much greater acceptance than one state by a majority of workers on both sides of the national divide. The CWI places a special focus on Israeli workers, arguing that the idea of one state in which they would become a minority is an anathema to most of them.

It is an undeniable fact that a majority of Israel Jews support Zionismmany believe that Jewish supremacy in Palestine is essential. This should be no surprise for Marxists, given that being determines consciousness. Israeli Jewish workers have a very high standard of living compared to proletarians in the region, both within Israel and in neighboring countries. They thus receive some profits from colonialism. In Israel today, a clear majority of Israeli Jews not only support the war but have called for it to be intensified. This is to be expected in any colony: most white people in South Africa backed apartheid until the very end.

For socialists, it should be clear that we cannot base our program on the prejudices of an oppressor nation. As Trotsky wrote in regard to white workers in South Africa, The worst crime on the part of the revolutionaries would be to give the smallest concessions to the privileges and prejudices of the whites. Whoever gives his little finger to the devil of chauvinism is lost.

The desire to win over Israeli Jewish workers for a socialist program is laudable. But the ISA/CWI proposes doing this by making concessions to their chauvinism, promising that their privileges can be maintained under socialism. This is reminiscent of the early Socialist Zionist settlers in Palestine who believed they could create socialist communities, the kibbuzim, on the basis of ethnic cleansing. The collapse of all socialist pretensions of the Israeli state shows that socialism is incompatible with chauvinism.

It is well known that Leninists defend the right of self-determination. But a call for self-determination for everyone represents a double misunderstanding of the communist program against national oppression. Lenin and the Communist International never called for self-determination for all peoplesthey called for self-determination for oppressed peoples.

This was not an abstract principle but an attempt to unite the energies of oppressed people struggling against foreign rule with the proletariats struggle for self-emancipation. Calling for self-determination for all, including for an oppressor nation like Israel, makes a mockery of this principle. For the CWI, it has meant calling for a socialist Ulster: in the case of Ireland, recognizing the self-determination of right-wing Protestant settlers in the North necessarily means denying the Irish peoples right to self-determination.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks never called for self-determination for Russian-speaking people in Ukraine or other Soviet Republics, as this would necessarily come at the expense of the self-determination of nations that had historically been oppressed by Great Russian chauvinism. Today, Vladimir Putin is incensed that Lenin deliberately rejected the self-determination of an oppressor nation in Ukraine.

It would have been absurd to call for self-determination for the pieds-noirs in Algeria or the Boers in South Africathis would simply be a socialist mantle for national oppression created by settler colonialism.

The second mistake is taking the right to self-determination as an absolute. As Lenin explained,

The several demands of democracy, including self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual concrete casts, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected. It is possible that the republican movement in one country may be merely an instrument of the clerical or financial-monarchist intrigues of other countries; if so, we must not support this particular, concrete movement.

And one must ask: How is the enforcement of Jewish supremacy in most of historical Palestine, even in a system that calls itself socialist, in any way compatible with a basic democratic program?

You might also be interested in: Palestinian Liberation and the Israeli Working Class

Winning Jewish Israeli workers for a socialist program means, above all, convincing them of the need to break with their own ruling class. They must abandon the Zionist bloc and throw their lot in with the workers and poor masses of the Arab world. That is the precondition for their own liberation. When the ISA/CWI claim that the demand for a socialist Israel makes it easier to win Israeli Jewish workers for socialism, then this is a very poor socialism indeed, on the basis of ethnic cleansing. At most, this is the socialism of the kibbuziman apartheid socialism that has nothing to do with the Trotskyist tradition.

Several other tendencies defend a socialist two-state solution without using that term. The International Marxist Tendency (IMT) has defended the same position as the ISA and CWI, with slightly different formulations. Writing in 2005, as the Second Intifada was winding down, IMT leader Fred Weston wrote that in Palestine, two separate territories would have to be worked out. What would such territories look like? A viable state for the Palestinians could be built out of the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan (where 60 percent of the population is Palestinian!), together with any parts of present-day Israel that could be feasibly integrated into such a state. This is just a slight variation on the imperialists two-state solution. Especially the idea that Palestinians can just move to Jordan is one advocated by the Right for decades.

While we were working on this article, we discovered that the IMT has silently edited Westons text in the last few months. The quotes above can still be found on archived versions of the IMT website from this summer. The new version, however, calls for autonomous territories instead of separate territories, and a viable territory instead of a viable state. Clearly, the IMT seems to be shifting away from its earlier advocacy of the two-state solution, without explicitly changing its position. In a new article from October 2023, they appear to step away from a two-state solution but its not quite clear if theyve repudiated their previous position.

Of course, it is welcome if they step away from their earlier chauvinism. But a serious Marxist organization can be judged by how it learns from its mistakes and corrects them in discussions with the vanguardthis kind of silent editing and new articles without acknowledging their past positions is the opposite.

Yet another organization that calls for a separate Jewish state in Palestine is the Spartacist League, which is often perceived as ultra-left yet aligns itself closely with Ted Grant on the right wing of the Trotskyist movement on important programmatic questions. It defends the call for two states with the neologism interpenetrated peoples, which means nothing but making the same concessions to chauvinism by deliberately confusing oppressor and oppressed people. The founder of Spartacism, Jim Robertson, got his start in Max Shachtmans organization, and in contrast to Trotskyists at the time, he supported the creation of Israel.

In the face of the ongoing horror in Gaza, several brave Israeli intellectuals like Ilan Papp and Gideon Levy have been calling for a single democratic state in historical Palestine. This would grant equal rights for everyone from the river to the sea, as the slogan goes. Israels former prime minister Ehud Olmert once declared that the principle one man, one vote would mean that the state of Israel is finished. Olmert, a far-right ethnonationalist (who by todays standards is considered a moderate!) thus made clear that Zionism and democracy are fundamentally incompatible. The state of Israel explicitly defines itself not as a state of its citizens but as a state of the Jewish people.

This means that Israel is not, by any standards, democratic. Its laws deny the rights of indigenous peoplesand as we explained above, of the majority of the population. Israels right-wing government claims to speak for all Jewish people around the world. This is, according to the deeply flawed IHRA definition, a form of antisemitism. Basic democratic principles would mean equal rights for everyone living in Palestine.

You might also be interested in: Palestine, Marxists and the One-State Solution

The one-state solution as proposed by Papp and others is a liberal democratic vision for Palestine. At a time when most self-described liberal democracies are aggressively supporting apartheid and a genocidal war, such a basic statement of democratic principles is a brave stance. As Papp points out, there is already one state ruling over all of historical Palestine. It is simultaneously simple and radical to say that all these people should have equal rights.

Some socialists also defend the idea that a single, democratic, secular, but nonsocialist state is the way forward. Socialists in the tradition of Tony Cliff, grouped in the International Socialist Tendency (IST), call for this solution. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) of Great Britain recently explained what a single state solution would look like (on page 11 of the PDF). As a model, they mention that the threat of a revolution forced white South African leaders to dismantle apartheid laws that separated and disenfranchised black South Africans from white ones. Yet the example of postapartheid South Africa shows that despite the abolition of explicitly racist laws, the inequality between white and Black people has actually increased. This shows the limits of such democratic victories under capitalism.

Socialists are the most consistent advocates of democracy, and hence we defend a one-state solution. But the biggest question is, who could be the social subject of such a radical transformation? Who will carry out such a program? It clearly cannot be the Israeli ruling class, who make fabulous profits from the occupation. Yet such an impulse will also not be expected from Jewish Israeli workers, who get crumbs from the tables of their rulers and thus have no immediate interest in sacrificing their privileges. The imperialists will do everything they can to prevent democratization, as this would mean losing their Zionist vassal in a geostrategically important region. The different bourgeois leaderships of the Palestinian liberation movement have similarly found a way to profit off the suffering of their people and do not defend strategies that would mean a radical break with the existing world order. The Arab bourgeoisies, while pretending to support the Palestinians, have all found arrangements with imperialism.

No, the only force that can conceivably fight for democracy are the workers and oppressed of the region. These forces are not represented by any government. Yet we are talking about hundreds of millions of people who are exploited by imperialism and the corrupt dictatorships it keeps in place, and who long for dignity and freedom. A revolutionary mass movement would tear down the borders erected 100 years ago by colonial powers. Such a revolutionary movement would form an alliance with other oppressed peoples, such as the Kurds.

Israeli Jewish workers would also be attracted by a perspective of such radical transformation of society. Despite their relative privileges, Israeli Jewish workers live in one of the most unequal capitalist societies in history, where poverty exists right next to fabulous wealth. A revolutionary movement in the Arab world, calling for a complete reorganization of social life, could break at least a minority of Jewish workers from Zionism.

A struggle for socialism would mobilize hundreds of millions of working and poor people, uniting them across national divides that have been imposed by imperialism. The experience of struggle, uniting around common interests in opposition to the different ruling classes, would create a real sense of international unity. This is what would make possible true coexistence and cooperation.

As the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky described with his theory-program of permanent revolution, if a mass movement of workers and oppressed people fights for democracy, they cannot limit themselves to democratic goals. If the working class wins power across the Middle East, toppling the pro-imperialist dictatorships, they will be confronted with the fiercest opposition by imperialism and the local bourgeoisies. Workers governments will be compelled to take drastic measures against private propertyand in this way, a democratic revolution will begin a socialist transformation. This is why the revolution is permanent.

As socialists, we must emphasize that the conflict can be solved by neither one state nor two states. Palestine is a tiny regionit can exist only as part of a global economic totality. This means being a dependent client of imperialism, as the Zionists have ensured for 75 years. Or, alternatively, Palestine can be part of an alliance of workers republics across the region. That is why we call for a Socialist Federation of the Middle East. Such a federation would centralize the economic activities of all the workerswhile guaranteeing all peoples democratic rights to their own culture and self-governance. This would include rights for Jewish Israeli workers to organize their own affairs on a democratic basis.

A socialist Palestine, as part of a larger federation, would not exactly be one state either. As Lenin pointed out in State and Revolution, a state run by the working class is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. Every state in history has been an instrument of a parasitic minority exploiting and oppressing the majority. But a workers state is run by the majority itself, with working people administering themselves, and therefore it is no longer an apparatus separate from the popular masses. In Lenins words, this is at most a semistate in the format of the Paris Commune, and this will wither away as socialist society develops. It is therefore not quite accurate to say that we are for one state in Palestine. We want a workers government, which is no longer a state in the traditional sense. Our goal is to have zero states: we want a global classless society in which people work together on the basis of solidarity.

To close, we would like to look back at the proud tradition of anti-Zionist Israelis from the group Matzpen of the 1960s and 1970s. These socialists displayed unconditional support for the Palestinian struggle against colonialism, with the perspective of a socialist revolution to overthrow Zionism and all forms of imperialist domination. Part of this struggle involved coordinating and debating with Palestinian leftists. Matzpen argued that Palestinians should state clearly that in a future liberated Palestine, Jews would have full democratic rights.

As part of this program, Nicola Jabra and Moshe Machover of Matzpen (the former Palestinian, the latter a Jewish Israeli) also called for the right of self-determination for all national groups living in a Socialist Federation of the Middle East. Controversially, they advocated the right of self-determination for Jews as well. Now, they added many qualifiers, and made clear that the ISO [Matzpen] does not advocate a separate Jewish state. But in a post-Zionist region freed of imperialism, they wanted to make sure each group had full democratic rights.

We would agree that a socialist Palestine needs to grant the fullest cultural rights and the greatest possible autonomy to all Jewish people who want to live there, as with any other people. Jabra and Machover explained that after the revolution, which will grant millions of Palestinian refugees a right to return, there will still be a continuous territory inhabited by an overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews. In that territory they will exercise the right to self-determination. The right of self-determination has nothing to do with the borders of Israel, or with any other borders that can be drawn on the map at this moment.

This obviously has nothing to do with the socialist Israel advocated by the ISA, the CWI, or the IMT. Matzpen was talking about limited territories where Israeli Jewish communities would remain in the majority, if they chose to do so, after the revolutionary destruction of the Zionist state. This would not infringe on the democratic rights of Palestiniansand hence it is a basic democratic right of Israeli Jews that every socialist would support.

As Lenin explained, however, the right to self-determination means nothing if not the right to secedeanything else is just an empty phrase. If a people cannot choose to form their own independent state, then they have no right to self-determination at all. In the case of Palestine, a separate state in which Israeli Jews make up the majority can only survive if it remains dependent on imperialism and in constant hostility with its neighbors.

With the greatest possible respect for the comrades of Matzpen, we think the formulation of self-determination for Israeli Jews can only lead to confusion (even if we agree with the logic of what Jabra and Machover were arguing). We advocate a socialist Palestine with full democratic rights for everyone who lives therebut a separate Israeli Jewish state would undermine the rights of the masses of the region to live free of imperialism.

Socialism in Palestine will grant the greatest possible autonomy to Jewish people. It will finally erase all the racial hierarchies that exist among Israeli Jews, allowing oppressed Jewish cultures to flourish. There is no way to maintain a state with a Jewish majority that does not involve violating the most basic principles of democracy.

To conclude: as socialists, we support all struggles for democracy. This means that we give our unconditional support to Palestinian resistance against colonialism and apartheid, even while we are deeply critical of the main leaderships of the Palestinians.

We reject any attempt to legitimize inequality with the farce of the two-state solution, and doubly so when such a two-state solution is presented in socialist garb.

From the river to the sea, we demand equality! We support every proposal that calls for real democracy for everyone in the framework of a single democratic Palestine. But we make clear that such a vision can only be made a reality if the workers and oppressed organize independently of imperialism and all bourgeois forces. A democratic Palestine can be created only as part of a radical transformation of the entire regionand this, in our opinion, requires a socialist perspective.

Three-quarters of a century after the creation of Israel, we think that the Jewish Palestinian Trotskyists in the late 1940s had the only realistic vision for resolving the conflict: Palestinian, Jewish, and all other workers in the region must struggle together to break with imperialism and create a Socialist Federation of the Middle East.

Link:
The Farce of the Two-State Solution and the Socialist Perspective for Palestine - Left Voice

Tags:

Socialism and Disney Are Incompatible – The Nation

Socialism and Disney Are Incompatible  The Nation

Here is the original post:
Socialism and Disney Are Incompatible - The Nation

Tags: