Palestinian General Strike?

[9]

I got this e-mail from the IJAN the other day about a "Palestinian general strike" (but it seems to be in regard to Palestinians within the State of Israel, from what I understand), but the details are very vague, and I haven't seen anything reported on it anywhere else. So I thought I'd paste the e-mail and inquire as to whether anyone here has any more information about it.

The email:

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network-Labor
Statement of Solidarity with the Palestinian General Strike
October 1, 2009

In the long tradition of Jewish working class involvement in and support for liberation struggles, IJAN-Labor stands in solidarity with the High Follow-up Committee for the Arab Citizens of Israel, the National Committee of Local Authorities, and all parties, movements and institutions of Palestinian civil society in Israel, who have called a general strike for today, October 1, 2009.

This strike marks the ninth anniversary of the Jerusalem and Al Aqsa Day in October 2000 when Israeli authorities massacred 13 Palestinian protesters. The killers have never been brought to justice.

IJAN-Labor also welcomes the Trades Union Congress (U.K.) resolution of 17 September, which endorses the growing movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israeli apartheid, and calls for reconsideration of the TUC's relationship with the Histadrut, the Zionist labor federation whose latest crime was to support Israel's attacks on Gaza.

The BDS campaign has been endorsed by a growing number of labor bodies, including the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), Solidaires Industrie (France), UNISON (UK), Transport and General Workers’ Union (UK), Western Australia Branch of the Maritime Union of Australia, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Canadian Union of Public Employees-Ontario, six Norwegian trade unions, Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Scottish Trades Union Congress, and Intersindical Alternativa de Catalunya.

In the United States, despite growing support from labor organizations and populations across the globe, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win fail to recognize what their British counterpart has now acknowledged: that Israel is a state built on defeating the aspirations and solidarity of working families not only in Israel but internationally.

Often without the knowledge or consent of union members, US Labor officialdom remains a leading accomplice of Israeli apartheid and the Zionist colonialism of which it is part. For more than sixty years, it has closely collaborated with the Histadrut, which has spearheaded — and whitewashed — apartheid, dispossession, ethnic cleansing and exploitation of the Palestinians since the 1920s.

Indeed, the Histadrut (as both employer and union) provided lethal weapons which the South African apartheid government used against Black workers, while at home it either excluded or segregated Arab workers.

Today, in solidarity with the general strike of Palestinian workers in Israel and growing international labor support for BDS, we call on US labor organizations to divest their estimated $5 billion investment in State of Israel Bonds, and to end all relations with the Histadrut.

[Yehuda Stern]

The strike has been called as part of the day of commemoration for the 13 Israeli Palestinian murdered at the hands of Israeli police in solidarity demonstrations with the second intifadah in October 2000.

Members of the ISL (including yours truly) attended the march organized in Arabe. The militancy and thirst for political debate was palpable: we distributed hundreds of leaflets, but could easily have distributed over a 1000 if we had them.

Most of the demonstrators who identified themselves with a certain party were supporters of either the Islamic Movement or Hadash (the electoral front of the Israeli CP). There were also some Balad (Azmi Bishara's liberal nationalist party) supporters and some token representation from Taal (Ahmed Tibi's party).

While the marchers were clearly militant, it was obvious that none of the organizations offered any way forward to fight the racist offensive by the Zionist state. As far as we could tell, we were the only group that produced a leaflet for the march. The anti-racist slogans are meaningless if they are not accompanied by any concrete political action.

One should not be surprised. All the mentioned parties participate, or at least are willing to participate, in elections to the Knesset, the racist parliament of the Zionist state, where they serve as token representation for the Palestinians and the left flank of the Zionist state. Indeed, it is Hadash MK Muhammad Barake who helped save Sharon's government (http://www.williambowles.info/mideast/meu_090205.html) some years ago.

With Hadash's reactionary position of two states for two people, which means the continuation of Israel's existence, and Balad's slogan of one state without any way to implement it, clearly these reformist parties cannot show any way forward for the Palestinian people, let alone the working class.

I will post our leaflet from the demonstration here as soon as it is translated.

[Leo]

All the mentioned parties participate, or at least are willing to participate, in elections to the Knesset, the racist parliament of the Zionist state, where they serve as token representation for the Palestinians and the left flank of the Zionist state.

This is quite an interesting statement. Is the ISL an anti-parliamentarian organization?

[the last donut of the night]

This is quite an interesting statement. Is the ISL an anti-parliamentarian organization?

I don't think so. It seems it's only opposed to the racist Knesset. But I might be wrong.

[Yehuda Stern]

Marxists participate in elections to expose bourgeois democracy as a tool of the ruling class. Most Palestinians, and I'd wager that even a majority of Israeli Palestinians, have never had democratic illusions in the Knesset. They do have parliamentary illusions, which is why the ISL raises the slogan of a constituent assembly in which all Palestinians (including refugees) and Israeli Jews could participate. But given their attitude to the Knesset, the Islamic and far left parties' participation in it reeks of opportunism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I suggest that your organization call for two constituent assemblies and not just one: one for proper state matters (defense, state security, judicial affairs, etc.), and the other for everything else (the "welfare state," education, environmental regulation, etc.).

[Yehuda Stern]

That a) makes no sense and b) reeks of economism.

[ls]

That a) makes no sense and b) reeks of economism.

In the face of deep persecution, calling for a slightly different parliamentary system is a complete and utter waste of time.

I have to say, the ISL don't seem like such a bad group. It seems a shame that attitudes between various anti-Zionist factions in Israel (anarchists, trots etc) are so hostile.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That a) makes no sense and b) reeks of economism.

Care to debate this beyond one-liners?

[Yehuda Stern]

It seems a shame that attitudes between various anti-Zionist factions in Israel (anarchists, trots etc) are so hostile.

Most groups either call for a two state solution, which would keep Israel intact, or call for one state without a workers revolution. The former are clearly pro-Zionists and therefore our hostility towards them should be understood. The latter, while usually their rank and file have honest motives, are likely to lead the Palestinians into an ANC-style compromise with their old oppressors, which will allow the Zionist capitalist to hold on to power while dropping the worst features of oppression.

Either way, we have no problem cooperating in demonstrations and such actions with any group if we can agree on a given slogan. So while the hostility exists, we do not allow to contribute to sectarianism.


Care to debate this beyond one-liners?

I just don't see the point of having two separate parliaments; it seems like one you suggest will deal with state matters and the other with economic matters. But how do we separate state matters from economic matters? Don't all the economic needs of the workers require their political action against the bourgeoisie? This is why I raised the issue of economism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I just don't see the point of having two separate parliaments; it seems like one you suggest will deal with state matters and the other with economic matters.

It's not just two parliaments, but rather two legislatures and two administrations (well, perhaps the judiciary can remain with "the state").

The logic behind this suggestion, based somewhat on earlier precedents yet departing from their class-collaborationist make-up, is in fact the Marxist position on the state itself as being the combined whole of the repressive instruments for the rule of minority classes.


But how do we separate state matters from economic matters?

Perhaps I did not raise this in my previous discussion on this suggestion, but there are indeed gray areas that I acknowledged, such as infrastructure and the military-industrial complex.

Overall, however, one should easily tell the difference between the military, the foreign affairs (ambassadorial bureaucracies), the courts, and so on - all on the one hand - and on the other things like old age retirement, public health insurance (welfare "state" stuff). The former plays a repressive role; the latter is mere civil administration ("the administration of things," to quote Engels and his reference to the utopian Saint-Simon).

Here's Lenin on not-so-state functions (although he didn't mention the welfare "state," the other side can include it):


This brings us to another aspect of the question of the state apparatus. In addition to the chiefly "oppressive" apparatus – the standing army, the police and the bureaucracy – the modern state possesses an apparatus which has extremely close connections with the banks and syndicates, an apparatus which performs an enormous amount of accounting and registration work, if it may be expressed this way. This apparatus must not, and should not, be smashed. It must be wrested from the control of the capitalists; the capitalists and the wires they pull must be cut off, lopped off, chopped away from this apparatus; it must be subordinated to the proletarian Soviets; it must be expanded, made more comprehensive, and nation-wide. And this can be done by utilising the achievements already made by large-scale capitalism (in the same way as the proletarian revolution can, in general, reach its goal only by utilising these achievements).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/01.htm


Don't all the economic needs of the workers require their political action against the bourgeoisie? This is why I raised the issue of economism.

Indeed, and political action will still be required re. sovereign economic governments. It would simply be harder to call them "states" in the Marxist and perhaps even anarchist senses.