Israel Palestine poll. [Archive]

Spawn of Stalin

16th December 2009, 19:52

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ^^

NET isn't an internet activism organisation. We are a small NGO which is doing things in real life, namely research, lectures and experiments. We have a total of about fifty members in several nations.

As for master Motionless. He is clearly doing marxism-leninism a good service by writing his many semi-trollic posts condoning authoritarianism. Good job indeed! :lol:

I agree that ComradeMan as an unhealthy obsession with Israel and Islam though.
I reject that notion. I haven't exactly been here long but I know one thing for sure, on RevLeft it is easy to be a troll, all you have to do is disagree with someone or say anything remotely anti-libertarian and you are instantly branded a troll. "Oh you believe the state is a good thing? Troll. You like China? Troll. You don't want to abolish money? Troll". Because being a troll has nothing to do with trying to provoke a reaction, or being a tosser for the sake of it, or purposely winding people up, right? But whatever, I can't tell people what to think, and even if I could I don't think I would bother, watching liberals get their knickers in a twist over Stalin is just too funny, I've even given up TV! But you know, being against Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism or whatever is absolutely fine, if you want to call me something, call me an authoritarian, I'm fine with that because compared to most people here, I basically am an authoritarian, but I ain't no troll.

ComradeMan

16th December 2009, 19:58

I wonder - why does one option say "Israeli and Palestinian state", but then in the one under it the word Palestinian is in mocking quotation marks? Would it be correct to assume that this is due to your pro-Israeli, two-state bias and your anti-Palestinian racist sentiments?

Yehuda: Can you even read? Are you even capable of a rational debate? Do you know what the two-state solution is? The only thing not on the poll options is Israel as is. Bit strange for someone you have declared a rabid Zionist no? The inverted commas around Palestine are because it is not clear what is meant by a Palestinian state whereas the one-state solution and the two-state solution are fairly, if not 100% accurately. well-defined in most minds. Do we mean Hamas' idea of a Palestinian state or your idea? Or someone else's? It would have been interesting if you could have actually offered your opinion in a constructive way instead of just attacking mine- which at present seems to represent 40% of the poll at the moment of writing. I suppose you will now conclude that 40% of the poll voters are all Zionists too now.

Do you have to read Zionism into every last damn thing? I suppose if I even said Happy Hanukkah that would be interpreted by you as some kind of Zionist message or other.

As for other comments.

Dimentio: There is no obsession with anything really, one was a thread I posted because of recent news, i.e. the Islam debate, and the other was an argument I got drawn into on someone else's thread about Zionism and the rest led on from there.

Motionless:

"freedom of movement, but if they want to live there, they should accept that Palestine is Palestine or just go back to wherever they came from"

What about all the Jews who were born there, and their parents, and grandparents and many whose origins go back hundreds if not thousands of years? What an ignorant and racist comment!!! I am surprised you would say such a thing.

What makes me laugh here is the absolute hypocrisy of some. I am branded a racist Zionist this-that-and-the-other by some who then come out with crap like this.

Spawn of Stalin

16th December 2009, 20:08

ComradeMan

16th December 2009, 20:29

Like I said, Jews should be allowed to stay there, but there is a difference between living somewhere and imposing your will on others. Having a house in Palestine is fine by me and fine by the Palestinians. Renaming Palestine, changing the structure of Palestine, removing the Palestinians from the political process in Palestine, cutting off the Palestinians from the outside world, not allowing Palestinians access to proper food and medical facilities, making Palestinians use different roads to the Jews, none of this is acceptable behaviour, it is many times worse than South Africa was and Gaza frankly reminds me of the Warsaw Ghetto. If someone wants to treat the Palestinians like shit, starve them, bomb them, burn their farms, then yes, they can go back to wherever they or their ancestors came from, this doesn't make me racist, it makes me human.

All very noble sentiments indeed and nothing I would disagree with. I'm glad that is what you meant as it did come over in a different way.:)

I would also like to point the hypocrisy of some people here who seem to have decided to launch some kind of a hate-campaign when on one of their groups there is the link to the following site:-
http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/whoweare.html

Which also links to this:-
www.ejjp.org (http://www.ejjp.org/)

"European Jews for a Just Peace
EJJP is a coalition of Jewish groups from several European countries who came together at a conference in Amsterdam in 2002. They campaign together for an end to Israelis occupation of Palestinian territory and for a peaceful solution based on self-determination for Israeli and Palestinian Jews and Arabs, with Jerusalem serving as a capital for both Israelis and Palestinians."

Which is what I have been saying all along!!!!!!!!!!!

I include the JSG statement below. There is nothing in this statement that I disagree with and more or less it reflects my own opinion. It acknowledges THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION for Jews as well as Arabs and all denominations, religions and groups. What the hell is wrong with that? It's what I have been trying to say all along and the fact that the Palestinian solidarity group on this forum has referenced links to this group and yet I am to be condemned for saying the same things here strikes me as rather odd in the least.

http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/statement.html
Stop the War!

End the Occupation!

Yes to a just peace; no to violence!

The Jewish Socialists' Group has a long record of supporting a just solution to the Israel Palestine conflict. We support unconditionally the independence and national right to self determination, including statehood, of both the Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. We believe each can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights of the other. Jerusalem should be the capital of both Israel and the Palestinian state.
We condemn the military occupation of Palestinian territory and the denial of basis human and civil rights to Palestinians. We call for the removal of Jewish settlements from territories occupied in 1967.
We believe that Israel ought to belong to all its citizens: Jews and Arabs, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, women and men and secular and religious people. We condemn discrimination against Arabs within Israel, both citizens and non-citizens, in land ownership, employment, education and access to welfare benefits. We support socialist and labour movement and peace forces within Israel striving for socialism and against war.
Israel claims it is acting on behalf of Jews worldwide. As Jews in the diaspora we wish to add our voices to those calling for an end to the occupation and for a just peace for both Israel and Palestine.

gorillafuck

16th December 2009, 20:33

Whats the difference between options 1 and 3?

ComradeMan

16th December 2009, 20:52

Whats the difference between options 1 and 3?

Good question. I wish Yehuda & Co would enlighten us to what they mean. They have said a single Palestinian Workers State in the past and in their group's album there is a map of "Israel" with a Palestinian flag superimposed on it. I take this to mean an exclusively Palestinian state. As I say, I wish they would enlighten me.

Hamas would no doubt push for an Islamic State whereas the original PLO declaration of independence ran more along the lines of this:.

The declaration concerns the Palestine region, as defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, which includes the whole of Israel as well as the West Bank and the Gaza strip. It references the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine from 1947 (which also serves as the basis for Israel's declaration of independence) and "UN resolutions since 1947" in general.

So far I have found these references to "Palestine" in terms of a proposed Palestinian state.

A secular Arab state (as described in the Palestinian National Covenant before the cancellation of the relevant clauses in 1998). Accordingly, only those "Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians", which excludes at least 90% of the Jewish population of Israel.
A strictly Islamic state (advocated by Hamas and the Islamic Movement).
A United Arab Kingdom plan which returns Palestine to nominal Jordanian control under the supervision of a Hashemite monarch. This idea was first proposed by the late King Hussein. In October 2007, King Abdullah stated that the Palestinian independence must be achieved before Jordan will entertain expanding its role in Palestine beyond religious sites. This plan is buttressed by a Jordanian infrastructure which is vastly superior to the 1948-1967 area with particular attention paid to tourism, healthcare, and education.

black_tambourine

16th December 2009, 22:43

Good question. I wish Yehuda & Co would enlighten us to what they mean. They have said a single Palestinian Workers State in the past and in their group's album there is a map of "Israel" with a Palestinian flag superimposed on it. I take this to mean an exclusively Palestinian state. As I say, I wish they would enlighten me.

Bullshit. They didn't separate the two, you did: the reason you did so is because in your mind nothing that Arabs or Muslims touch can be "secular" or "non-discriminatory", and thus any state would have to have a substantial Israeli component due to the latter's cultural superiority. And if the only feasible alternative is an Islamic state under Hamas, so what? There is not an Islamic state anywhere in the world in which non-Muslims are oppressed to the same degree that Palestinians are in Israel.

And I've noticed that a tactic you've used up to this point is to define "self-determination" progressively down from your original intent, so that by the end it looks like you were advocating a perfectly reasonable position all along, and your opponents rejected it because they are vituperative Jew-haters. When the issue of "self-determination" first came up, you equated it with a state founded on ethno-religious, and thus inherently exclusionary principles - the fact that the Jewish community could do their thang in Israel was justified by the fact that leftists supposedly extended the same right to everyone else (which is not true). Now, you are using "self-determination" in such a vague and sanitized sense that it might as well be "any group that lives anywhere in which they are not overtly oppressed by the state". The whole point in relation to Israel is now moot, since it could be argued using the same criterion that Jewish neighborhoods in Miami are an example of "self-determination".

Finally, any just solution to the conflict will acknowledge a Palestinian right of return - in other words, it will not regard as fait accompli the mass displacement of Palestinians and the expropriation of their land that were conditions for Israel's founding. If this entails the counter-displacement of a large proportion of individual Israelis who have blithely made their living with these confiscated resources, and have supported the system that keeps Palestinians in a marginalized position to collective Israeli benefit, so be it. You can mouth all the nursery-school platitudes you want about two wrongs not making a right, but anything else would be absolving people of responsibility for decisions that they have made to perpetuate ruin and misery upon others.

Yehuda Stern

16th December 2009, 23:27

black tambourine: I agree with your post for the most part, but don't buy into the Zionist propaganda which says that the right of return means expelling or displacing Jews. When the refugees return, the revolutionary government will obviously damage the property of the better off in order to give them a place to live, etc. But this will be done on the basis of political criteria, i.e. expelling those who oppose the revolution and taking property from the bourgeoisie, not specifically taking property for Jews and giving it to Palestinians. Of course there are far more better off Jews than Palestinians and conversely, most supporters of the revolution will be Palestinians - but the criterion remains political nonetheless.

black_tambourine

16th December 2009, 23:31

Point taken. Thanks.

Spawn of Stalin

17th December 2009, 00:10

I think that some Jews would voluntarily move if it became one Palestinian state, granted most Israeli Jews are quite secular as far as I know, but the more hardcore Zionist types wouldn't be seen dead in a state governed by Hamas, or Fatah, or anyone else who had the interests of the Palestinian Arabs at heart.

Robocommie

17th December 2009, 01:59

My, the results of this poll are certainly shocking! ;)

Yehuda Stern

17th December 2009, 11:57

the more hardcore Zionist types wouldn't be seen dead in a state governed by Hamas, or Fatah, or anyone else who had the interests of the Palestinian Arabs at heart.

True, but what do those two groups have anything to do with the last part of your sentence?

Patchd

17th December 2009, 14:46

I thought you were an Anarchist ComradeMan, where's the "no-state" solution?

ComradeMan

17th December 2009, 19:58

I thought you were an Anarchist ComradeMan, where's the "no-state" solution?

LOL!!! That's the best comment I've read. It would be great, but I was trying more to look at the solutions that are being proposed at the moment. ;)

ComradeMan

17th December 2009, 20:31

Bullshit. They didn't separate the two, you did:

What on earth are you on about? Who's separating what?
the reason you did so is because in your mind nothing that Arabs or Muslims touch can be "secular" or "non-discriminatory",

Where have I ever said that? But have a look at the map below.
and thus any state would have to have a substantial Israeli component due to the latter's cultural superiority.

Never said that.
And if the only feasible alternative is an Islamic state under Hamas, so what?

So a leftwinger would support a theocratic state? Bit hypocritical seeing as some have been arguing so vehemently against the Zionist state. Seems like two sides of the same coin.
There is not an Islamic state anywhere in the world in which non-Muslims are oppressed to the same degree that Palestinians are in Israel.

Oh no? Perhaps not to the same extent but I'd like you to speak to my Iranian Zoroastrian friends. Perhaps you could chat to the Yezidi-Kurds? Or the pagans of Nuristan? How about chah with some Egyptian Copts lately or Sudanese Christians? What about the 600,000 Jews who fled to Israel from Islamic nations in fear of their lives? I am not saying that any religion is better than any other and really wish to avoid a theological debate as it is non-empirical and a waste of time.
You must also acknowledge that a factor in the whole damn mess is that most of the Arab and greater Islamic world with the exception of Egypt at the moment does not support any secular solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict at all, rather they support the creation of an Islamic state only. No one is denying the mistreatment of the Palestinians- but the prospect of a Hamas Theocracy to which you say "So what?" is not exactly that great either.
And I've noticed that a tactic you've used up to this point is to define "self-determination" progressively down from your original intent, so that by the end it looks like you were advocating a perfectly reasonable position all along, and your opponents rejected it because they are vituperative Jew-haters.

All I have ever said is that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination as much as any other people do, including Palestinians.
When the issue of "self-determination" first came up, you equated it with a state founded on ethno-religious, and thus inherently exclusionary principles -

Could you point out exactly where I said that? I have only ever said that I supported a one-state secular solution with equality and self-determination for all, i.e. Jews AND all the other groups.
the fact that the Jewish community could do their thang in Israel was justified by the fact that leftists supposedly extended the same right to everyone else (which is not true).

Are you equating Jews with Zionists again by any chance? Here we go again, JEW=ZIONIST!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, you are using "self-determination" in such a vague and sanitized sense that it might as well be "any group that lives anywhere in which they are not overtly oppressed by the state". The whole point in relation to Israel is now moot, since it could be argued using the same criterion that Jewish neighborhoods in Miami are an example of "self-determination".

Self-determination means looking after your own affairs and not being interfered with by others as long as you do not interfere with others.
Finally, any just solution to the conflict will acknowledge a Palestinian right of return - in other words, it will not regard as fait accompli the mass displacement of Palestinians and the expropriation of their land that were conditions for Israel's founding.

There were Jews in the region long before Israel's founding and there are plenty of Arab-Israelis who have not been booted out. No one is denying the wrongs done to the Palestinians and no one has justified any of the crimes committed in the name of a non-secular Zionist state. Of course the Palestinian refugee communities would be welcome back in a peaceful one-state solution.
If this entails the counter-displacement of a large proportion of individual Israelis who have blithely made their living with these confiscated resources, and have supported the system that keeps Palestinians in a marginalized position to collective Israeli benefit, so be it.

Who's going to do that? How would you decide? What would be deemed fair and unfair. You can mouth off all your fine rhetoric but you seem to be inable to actually talk about practical and workable solutions. I've asked several times for the other arguments to be explained and clarified to which I have received no answer.
You can mouth all the nursery-school platitudes you want about two wrongs not making a right, but anything else would be absolving people of responsibility for decisions that they have made to perpetuate ruin and misery upon others.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Nursery-school platitudes... I despair. It's funny, if this were, just an example, about Cuban refugees from the Castro regime who may feel that they have also been treated badly, had their land and wealth expropriated and so on, and not all were wealthy casino owners, I am sure you wouldn't be striking the same tune. Of course two wrongs don't make a right. (Re the Cuban issue, I know it is a complex issue, it's just an example so I don't really want to get into it here).

By the way, if you look at the poll, you might notice that I am not the only one who supports the one state solution. Where are all these other Zionists hiding then? I say Zionists because obviously anyone who supports anything that is not exactly what you support is de facto a Zionist. Come out you Zionists!!! Come out...! Where are you? :D
__________________________________________________ ______________

For general interest.

I found this map which purports to show the varying levels of support for the different solutions in the world as is. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Palestinian_state#Current_proposal s

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Israel-Palestine_Diplomacy.svg/800px-Israel-Palestine_Diplomacy.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Israel-Palestine_Diplomacy.svg)

The map shows the status of the one-state solution for both Israel and Palestine. Israel and Palestine Recognition of a Jewish/Zionist-only state Recognition of a Jewish/Zionist state, with a Muslim/Arab minority Recognition of a dual/bi-national "Jewish and Arab" state Recognition of a Muslim/Arab state, with a Jewish/Zionist minority Recognition of a Muslim/Arab-only state No recognition

ComradeMan

17th December 2009, 20:32

PS The key to the map- it wouldn't all fit in one post. (Not my wording)

[/URL]
BLACK Israel and Palestine DARK BLUE=Recognition of a Jewish/[URL="http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Zionist"]Zionist (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Israel-Palestine_Diplomacy.svg)-only state LIGHT BLUE= Recognition of a Jewish/Zionist state, with a Muslim/Arab minority PURPLE=Recognition of a dual/bi-national "Jewish and Arab" state LIGHT GREEN=Recognition of a Muslim/Arab state, with a Jewish/Zionist minority DARK GREEN=Recognition of a Muslim/Arab-only state GREY= No recognition

Woyzeck

17th December 2009, 20:41

Anyone who voted against the Palestinian state option should be banned. As should the OP as he/she is sympathetic to Zionism. :)

black_tambourine

17th December 2009, 21:34

the reason you did so is because in your mind nothing that Arabs or Muslims touch can be "secular" or "non-discriminatory",

Where have I ever said that? But have a look at the map below.

You have stated words to this effect whenever the topic has come up, and are doing so now by equating the leadership of authoritarian Muslim regimes with the Arab and Muslim communities as a whole.

and thus any state would have to have a substantial Israeli component due to the latter's cultural superiority.

Never said that.

I took the liberty of making an inference. If it really bothers you, consider it just deserts for your calling anyone who criticizes Israel's founding an anti-Semite.

So a leftwinger would support a theocratic state? Bit hypocritical seeing as some have been arguing so vehemently against the Zionist state. Seems like two sides of the same coin.

Better than a neocolonial state that condemns an entire population to virtual non-personhood.

There is not an Islamic state anywhere in the world in which non-Muslims are oppressed to the same degree that Palestinians are in Israel.

Oh no? Perhaps not to the same extent

Thank you for the admission. Moving on...

Could you point out exactly where I said that? I have only ever said that I supported a one-state secular solution with equality and self-determination for all, i.e. Jews AND all the other groups.

In the original thread on whether Western support for Israel was based on racism, you responded to someone who said that "no state should be founded on an ethno-religious basis" with a bunch of accusatory histrionics about "self-determination". I again made the elementary inference that you regard the former as a component of the latter. Either you are disingenuous, or you literally do not know what your own views on the subject are.

the fact that the Jewish community could do their thang in Israel was justified by the fact that leftists supposedly extended the same right to everyone else (which is not true).

Are you equating Jews with Zionists again by any chance? Here we go again, JEW=ZIONIST!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your words, not mine. You associated the Zionist project with Jewish self-determination.

Now, you are using "self-determination" in such a vague and sanitized sense that it might as well be "any group that lives anywhere in which they are not overtly oppressed by the state". The whole point in relation to Israel is now moot, since it could be argued using the same criterion that Jewish neighborhoods in Miami are an example of "self-determination".

Self-determination means looking after your own affairs and not being interfered with by others as long as you do not interfere with others.

Thank you again for proving my point. If you define it this broadly (which I do not have a problem with), then the Jewish community already has self-determination in any country with no institutionalized discrimination against them, and the question of Israel is completely moot.

There were Jews in the region long before Israel's founding and there are plenty of Arab-Israelis who have not been booted out. No one is denying the wrongs done to the Palestinians and no one has justified any of the crimes committed in the name of a non-secular Zionist state. Of course the Palestinian refugee communities would be welcome back in a peaceful one-state solution.

Your pie-in-the-sky solution of return without any political friction is far less realistic than anything others on this board have proposed.

Who's going to do that? How would you decide? What would be deemed fair and unfair. You can mouth off all your fine rhetoric but you seem to be inable to actually talk about practical and workable solutions. I've asked several times for the other arguments to be explained and clarified to which I have received no answer.

That's all up to the Palestinians, not me. And you explicitly stated that this thread was not confined to "workable solutions", genius. What would have been your "workable solution" to slavery in 1830s America, hmm?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Nursery-school platitudes... I despair. It's funny, if this were, just an example, about Cuban refugees from the Castro regime who may feel that they have also been treated badly, had their land and wealth expropriated and so on, and not all were wealthy casino owners, I am sure you wouldn't be striking the same tune. Of course two wrongs don't make a right. (Re the Cuban issue, I know it is a complex issue, it's just an example so I don't really want to get into it here).

So you're equating the rich, politically powerful community of Plattista Cubans in Miami with the Palestinians? You really do need to be banned. And possibly hunted down and given a good smack.

ComradeMan

17th December 2009, 22:14

You have stated words to this effect whenever the topic has come up, and are doing so now by equating the leadership of authoritarian Muslim regimes with the Arab and Muslim communities as a whole.

Show me the words..... I like the weasel-get out of "to this effect", which means basically you can't but that's what you want to me to have said. As for the facts and stats- not my information and no one is doing any equating here, they are the declared positions of Islamic states as far as the "research" shows.
I took the liberty of making an inference. If it really bothers you, consider it just deserts for your calling anyone who criticizes Israel's founding an anti-Semite.

I never did such a thing. I posed the troublesome question, if all people's have a right to self-determination what about the Jewish people? The original thread was about pro-Zionism being linked to racism in the US if I am not mistaken so you are talking out of your proverbial backside. Nor did I accuse anyone of being an anti-Semite just because they criticised Israel's founding, that would mean I would have to criticise the Jewish Socialist Organisation, I draw your attention to their words too...

Better than a neocolonial state that condemns an entire population to virtual non-personhood.

Are you completely incapable of any analytical thought? Who said that? Oh and a Hamas state should be supported as opposed to a Zionist state? I support neither.

Thank you for the admission. Moving on...

Admission of what? Do you now deny that the politics and current affairs of the greater Middle-East have no influence of what happens in Israel? If you do then you are misguided to say the least...

In the original thread on whether Western support for Israel was based on racism, you responded to someone who said that "no state should be founded on an ethno-religious basis" with a bunch of accusatory histrionics about "self-determination". I again made the elementary inference that you regard the former as a component of the latter. Either you are disingenuous, or you literally do not know what your own views on the subject are.

Indeed no state should be founded on an ethno-religious basis, but then you seem to be unable to see the difference between a Zionist ethno-religious state and a state in which Jewish people would have self-determination, they are not the same things. So really you have no argument as the concept seems to be too mind-bogglingly difficult for you.

Your words, not mine. You associated the Zionist project with Jewish self-determination.

No, you use the words "Jew" indiscriminately in a statement that blatantly "inferred" as you like to say that you see Jews in Israel as Zionists. By making the blanket statement that the "Jewish community" could do their "thang" blatanly implies that the Jews of Israel are de facto Zionists. If this is not using Jew as a synonym for Zionist then I don't know what it.

Thank you again for proving my point. If you define it this broadly (which I do not have a problem with), then the Jewish community already has self-determination in any country with no institutionalized discrimination against them, and the question of Israel is completely moot.

You have no point really, because in the one-state non secular solution the Jewish community would also have its own self-determination, along with all the other peoples of the region and so what would the problem be?

Your pie-in-the-sky solution of return without any political friction is far less realistic than anything others on this board have proposed.

Who's talking about the Law of Return here? In my pie-in-the-sky vision of the world people would be free to live wherever they want. I notice when I talk about some kind of idealistic vision it's pie-in-the-sky but when others talk about their own non-defined visions it's viewed as some kind of realpolitik- ironic eh?

That's all up to the Palestinians, not me. And you explicitly stated that this thread was not confined to "workable solutions", genius. What would have been your "workable solution" to slavery in 1830s America, hmm?

What's that got to do with anything? Stop distracting from the issue in the topic. We are not talking about slavery in 1830's America we are talking about the Israel-Palestine conflict in the here and now.

So you're equating the rich, politically powerful community of Plattista Cubans in Miami with the Palestinians?

No, and I state that as such. What about all the other Cubans? What about the anarchists, Movimiento Libertario Cubano? Like I said, it was just one example for the argument. But off you go again making sweeping generalisations without looking at the fine detail.

You really do need to be banned.

Have a look at the poll at the top of the page.

And possibly hunted down and given a good smack.

Oh please. That's really wonderfully revolutionary thinking, I don't like what you say so I think you should be given a smack...In fact that would be exactly the tactic of the ultra-Zionists. Have you got something strange growing out of your forehead? I shall stop here before I say something that stoops to your level.

Now, either talk about the topic in hand in a reasonable and rational way and deal with the issues instead of silly and childish ad hominem attacks or please refrain from posting as it is not helping the discussion.

Revy

17th December 2009, 22:38

So far I have found these references to "Palestine" in terms of a proposed Palestinian state.

A secular Arab state (as described in the Palestinian National Covenant before the cancellation of the relevant clauses in 1998). Accordingly, only those "Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians", which excludes at least 90% of the Jewish population of Israel.
A strictly Islamic state (advocated by Hamas and the Islamic Movement).
A United Arab Kingdom plan which returns Palestine to nominal Jordanian control under the supervision of a Hashemite monarch. This idea was first proposed by the late King Hussein. In October 2007, King Abdullah stated that the Palestinian independence must be achieved before Jordan will entertain expanding its role in Palestine beyond religious sites. This plan is buttressed by a Jordanian infrastructure which is vastly superior to the 1948-1967 area with particular attention paid to tourism, healthcare, and education.

These are NOT the only three solutions for a Palestinian state.

I voted one-state solution (secular and non-discriminatory) but I think that necessarily involves returning to the name Palestine which was neutral before the existence of Israel. "Isratine" is ridiculous and any references to "the Holy Land" are religious.

A one-state solution advocated by revolutionaries does NOT call for a so-called "Arab state" (and certainly not the anti-Semitic portrait of one you have painted). It calls for a neutral state.

ComradeMan

17th December 2009, 22:55

These are NOT the only three solutions for a Palestinian state.

I voted one-state solution (secular and non-discriminatory) but I think that necessarily involves returning to the name Palestine which was neutral before the existence of Israel. "Isratine" is ridiculous and any references to "the Holy Land" are religious.

A one-state solution advocated by revolutionaries does NOT call for a so-called "Arab state" (and certainly not the anti-Semitic portrait of one you have painted). It calls for a neutral state.

I am aware that those are not the only solutions, but the one-state solution also has variants, unfortunately they were the only ones I find at a quick reference and none of the "Palestine" camp seem to want to elucidate, other than hurling insults and abuse.

I agree the name issue would be a problem as ISRAEL and PALESTINE are both charged words, how about Canaan? LOL!!! :D ISRATINE just sounds ridiculous I agree.... HEBRABIA? :)

I know that most revolutionaries who are serious do not call for an Arab state but the problem is the other Islamic/Arab states with the exception of Egypt do and they have enormous influence in the matter. If you have a look at that map of "sympathies" it does suggest some interesting points about realpolitik today. I also point out that when people have maps of Israel with a Palestinian flag superimposed all over it then it does suggest that they are not exactly compromising in their attitude either.

MilitantWorker

17th December 2009, 23:09

I am Palestinian-American.

My family is from Nablus, in the occupied West Bank.

My father's Uncle's were killed by the Haganah during the Nakbah.

In '57 my family was expelled from the family household and land and eventually would resettle in Kuwait, then Jordan. My father came to the States in '77.

The problems of the Palestinian people, my people, is directly tied to Imperialism and Capitalism.

Two states is no solution. One state is no solution.

The solution is no state, no bourgeoisie, no capitalism, no classes. Only then will there be peace in the Middle East.

:star2:

black_tambourine

17th December 2009, 23:21

You have stated words to this effect whenever the topic has come up, and are doing so now by equating the leadership of authoritarian Muslim regimes with the Arab and Muslim communities as a whole.

Show me the words..... I like the weasel-get out of "to this effect", which means basically you can't but that's what you want to me to have said. As for the facts and stats- not my information and no one is doing any equating here, they are the declared positions of Islamic states as far as the "research" shows.

Any given post you made in this thread, where you came out in favor of the Swiss ban on minarets.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/swiss-minarets-vote-t123564/index.html

I took the liberty of making an inference. If it really bothers you, consider it just deserts for your calling anyone who criticizes Israel's founding an anti-Semite.

I never did such a thing.

Yes you did. Refer to any given post of yours from this thread, in response to either Yehuda Stern or Apikoros.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/pro-zionism-related-t124066/index.html

Also refer to this thread, where you copy/pasted an essay by the pro-Iraq-war AWL that declared anyone whose criticism of Israel went beyond certain narrow bounds to be an anti-Semite:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/leftwing-anti-semitismi-t124636/index.html

Better than a neocolonial state that condemns an entire population to virtual non-personhood.

Are you completely incapable of any analytical thought? Who said that? Oh and a Hamas state should be supported as opposed to a Zionist state? I support neither.

I acknowledge that one is plainly worse than the other rather than trying to establish any false parity between the two. Your thinking is of the same type that sees some women in Gaza wearing the hijab as equally troubling as the Israeli government using malnutrition as a weapon against the people of Gaza because they voted for the wrong political party.

Thank you for the admission. Moving on...

Admission of what?

The admission that there is not an Islamic state in the world in which non-Muslims are oppressed to the same degree that Palestinians are in Israel.

no state should be founded on an ethno-religious basis

You responded indignantly to a poster in Che's thread (linked above) who said exactly this. Again, you are either confused or disingenuous.

Your words, not mine. You associated the Zionist project with Jewish self-determination.

No, you use the words "Jew" indiscriminately in a statement that blatantly "inferred" as you like to say that you see Jews in Israel as Zionists. By making the blanket statement that the "Jewish community" could do their "thang" blatanly implies that the Jews of Israel are de facto Zionists. If this is not using Jew as a synonym for Zionist then I don't know what it.

I attributed said blanket statement to you. Again, go over your posts in Che's thread, and this is basically what you are saying - you associate the founding of Israel by Zionists as being fundamentally bound up with the question of Jewish self-determination. Also notice that I took pains to use the word "Jewish community" in this context instead of "Jew", since the latter can be construed as perjorative, yet you attribute the latter to me anyway. More disingenuousness.

Thank you again for proving my point. If you define it this broadly (which I do not have a problem with), then the Jewish community already has self-determination in any country with no institutionalized discrimination against them, and the question of Israel is completely moot.

You have no point really, because in the one-state non secular solution the Jewish community would also have its own self-determination, along with all the other peoples of the region and so what would the problem be?

My point is that Jewish self-determination has nothing necessarily to do with Jewish presence in Israel, a point which you deny in Che's now oft-referenced thread. Of course, those who are not complicit in Zionist crimes have the right to stay in Palestine, but they would be just as "self-determined" in a country such as the U.S.

Your pie-in-the-sky solution of return without any political friction is far less realistic than anything others on this board have proposed.

Who's talking about the Law of Return here? In my pie-in-the-sky vision of the world people would be free to live wherever they want. I notice when I talk about some kind of idealistic vision it's pie-in-the-sky but when others talk about their own non-defined visions it's viewed as some kind of realpolitik- ironic eh?

No, both solutions are unrealistic for the time being. However, yours is more unrealistic since it assumes that Zionists in Israel would be all like "OMG sorry we took ur land a while back and oppressed u for decades guyz, heerz ur land back and no hard feelins am I rite?" and the Palestinians would be all like "OMG OKAY!" and then all would gather around an olive tree and sing a nice John Denver song. And my intent was to point out that you were pontificating to others about "workable" solutions while advocating a drastically unworkable one yourself, a hypocrisy which you now attempt to attribute solely to your opponents. Disingenuousness Part 3: The Gathering.

That's all up to the Palestinians, not me. And you explicitly stated that this thread was not confined to "workable solutions", genius. What would have been your "workable solution" to slavery in 1830s America, hmm?

What's that got to do with anything? Stop distracting from the issue in the topic. We are not talking about slavery in 1830's America we are talking about the Israel-Palestine conflict in the here and now.

My point is that people who gas about "workable solutions" to drastic problems are often de facto reconciled to the status quo. All "workable solutions" to slavery in 1830 involved...maintaining slavery. Since I think it's fairly clear that you would rather see Israel continue in its present state than see any political action by Palestinians that would not solicitously take into account the undisrupted well-being of Zionists, the analogy applies.

What about all the other Cubans? What about the anarchists, Movimiento Libertario Cubano?

My heart bleeds for the members of this organization. All eight of them.

Oh please. That's really wonderfully revolutionary thinking, I don't like what you say so I think you should be given a smack...In fact that would be exactly the tactic of the ultra-Zionists. Have you got something strange growing out of your forehead? I shall stop here before I say something that stoops to your level.

Now, either talk about the topic in hand in a reasonable and rational way and deal with the issues instead of silly and childish ad hominem attacks or please refrain from posting as it is not helping the discussion.

Why do I get the feeling that you posture about "reasonable debate" not so much because you actually want it, as because the best burns you can come up with are things like "have you got something strange growing out of your forehead"?

Still, I'm glad I was able to cut through your smarmy, unctuous veneer and get you sputtering. It reveals the true substance of your arguments.

Revy

17th December 2009, 23:25

I agree the name issue would be a problem as ISRAEL and PALESTINE are both charged words, how about Canaan? LOL!!! :D ISRATINE just sounds ridiculous I agree.... HEBRABIA? :)

I think you misinterpreted me. I don't think Palestine is a "charged" name at all. That's the name I support. It is the name that the land was referred to for millenia and applied to both Jews and Arabs so it is only logical.

Communist Theory

17th December 2009, 23:32

I say we send Comrade Kim up in there and distribute the peace!
:lol:

Coggeh

17th December 2009, 23:51

Anyone who voted against the Palestinian state option should be banned. As should the OP as he/she is sympathetic to Zionism. :)
Not really, I support a two state solution on the basis of a socialist programme.

Because, you have to take in to account the national question of the area, workers in both countries who could easily be turned to reactionary ideals (and most are) because of no clear alternative set out by leftist parties in the region. Most are too caught up in nationalist dogma rather than approaching the struggle on a class basis. Palestine and Israel will never be free unless it does away with capitalism .

The question we should be asking ourselves is not how we solve the palestine/Israel question but how we solve the question of capitalism and reactionary ideas in the region . The answer being a cross border movement based on class unity , opposed to the Israeli brutal attacks and the right wing government , opposed to Hamas and Fatah which offer no solution to the palestinian people and to inter-sect fighting between palestinian groups.

The question of national identity also arises in this case also, borders do not consitiute a nation for staters, culture, a way of life , language, religion etc may constitute a nation . It is clear that having revolutionary parties supporting the destruction of Israel and replacing it with Palestine would have huge consequences in alienating a huge layer of Israel workers .

There is a lesson to be learned too from Soviet support of the creation of Israel, it was bad policy and 99% of leftists would have opposed it because , despite Israeli movements at the time having an anti imperialist movement to them those zionist movements were reactionary, it led to a huge conflict which continues to this day in the form of toil and misery for millions in the region .

Now consider: supporting hamas and the destruction of Israel would result in the continuing conflict in the region the strengthing of the divide between classes based on nationality and religion. Untold misery for jewish people who would be subject to brutal conditions if a Hamas struggle were ever successfull .And would not further the class struggle in Palestine an inch .

It would be the same situation we have now but with a different flag doing the oppressing.

We must approach the question from a marxist perspective of struggle on a class basis, we must fight for the creation of the first mass workers party to work cross border in the region to provide an alternative to the reactionary politics that have ruled the day in both countries . This is the only successful possiblity to this problem and left-nationalist solutions will only prove to be counter productive to the class struggle.

Revy

18th December 2009, 01:41

It is clear that having revolutionary parties supporting the destruction of Israel and replacing it with Palestine would have huge consequences in alienating a huge layer of Israel workers .

The question would be whether it is necessary to achieve the support of Israeli workers before dismantling the state of Israel. The people of Palestine deserve freedom regardless whether it is popular or not, and there is nothing more "alienating" than the idea that peace between both peoples can only be achieved through a partition. There should be more Jewish-Arab integration (the settlements are wrong not because Jews move into Arab land, but because they are elements of colonization and land theft).

There is a lesson to be learned too from Soviet support of the creation of Israel, it was bad policy and 99% of leftists would have opposed it because , despite Israeli movements at the time having an anti imperialist movement to them those zionist movements were reactionary, it led to a huge conflict which continues to this day in the form of toil and misery for millions in the region . Genuine Marxists at the time took the same position they do now: a secular, democratic Palestinian workers' state.

Now consider: supporting hamas and the destruction of Israel would result in the continuing conflict in the region the strengthing of the divide between classes based on nationality and religion. Untold misery for jewish people who would be subject to brutal conditions if a Hamas struggle were ever successfull .And would not further the class struggle in Palestine an inch .
A Hamas-ruled Palestine would indeed have disastrous consequences and supporting Hamas is indeed a wrong position. But we shouldn't assume that a one-state solution would be ruled by Hamas.

We must approach the question from a marxist perspective of struggle on a class basis, we must fight for the creation of the first mass workers party to work cross border in the region to provide an alternative to the reactionary politics that have ruled the day in both countries . This is the only successful possiblity to this problem and left-nationalist solutions will only prove to be counter productive to the class struggle.I agree with this, but I think this strategy is most compatible with a one-state solution.

Coggeh

18th December 2009, 01:52

The question would be whether it is necessary to achieve the support of Israeli workers before dismantling the state of Israel. It is necessary. Its very necessary if your goal is to construct a socialist state that is.Socialism can only be built on the idea of class unity not on a nationalist war of independance.

A Hamas-ruled Palestine would indeed have disastrous consequences and supporting Hamas is indeed a wrong position. But we shouldn't assume that a one-state solution would be ruled by Hamas.

You are quite right. We should never assume such a thing . But their are many leftist groups who support hamas. I wonder what type of Palestine they are really thinking of building ?

I agree with this, but I think this strategy is most compatible with a one-state solution.
We have to link the demand for a Socialist Palestine alongside a socialist Israel to a federation of socialist states in the Middle east. What difference would it make to a Palestinian or an Israeli at that point which socialist state they were living in ? they wouldn't be treated any bit differently . However by calling for a single state solution we run a huge risk of alienating not only Israeli workers but Palestinian : thats if you want to go down the line of Palreal OR Israstine.

A two state solution is popularly supported by both Israelis and Palestinians and to demand a one state : Palestine would be dig a huge hole for the movement your trying to build.

Real freedom does not come with national independance it comes with the end to capitalism.

Angry Young Man

18th December 2009, 02:02

For the record, I voted "Palestinian" state.

I'm sorry for hyperbole, but to not vote for the 'One State solution' is to piss in the face of socialism. 'Palestinian State' is to define people by nationality and race rather than class - both reactionary and absurd. Forbidding a Jew from living (peacably) in Jerusalem because there is a history of oppression is like Forbidding an Italian from living in France because of the Roman Empire

18th December 2009, 02:03

Who the hell said anything about forbidding Jews from living there?

Revy

18th December 2009, 02:09

It is necessary. Its very necessary if your goal is to construct a socialist state that is.Socialism can only be built on the idea of class unity not on a nationalist war of independance.

What I meant to say was that a simple majority of Israeli workers for a one-state solution may not be necessary - of course, class unity of Jewish and Arab workers is a basic thing.

ComradeMan

18th December 2009, 09:28

My basic problems with the two-state solutions are this:-

1. The two-state solution.
(Despite my opinions I think this is what's going to happen...:()

It would represent an absolute failure on a human level. It would de facto be throwing your hands up in the air and saying multi-cultural states cannot exist and peoples cannot live and work together in peace. From an anarchist point of view supporting the creation of two nationalist states is hardly desirable either.

On a non-ideological basis.

I don't think it's workable. It would be an absolute nightmare logistically deciding what the actual states would be, where the borders would run, who would have water rights and so on. Let us not forget, whether we are believers or not, that religion plays a part in all of this and the subject of religion is highly charged in the region. Holy sites are scattered throughout all the region for one or other of the main religions in the region and that could become a problem.

The two-state solution would leave the Palestinians divided and fragmented with little access to the main developed areas of the region. I think this would inevitably lead to the so-called Three States Solution with the West Bank falling under the Kingdom of Jordan and Gaza going to Egypt. So much for Palestinian self-determination. Some argue that the split in the Palestinian authority is already symptomatic of this with the divide between the West Bank and Gaza (under Hamas).

The two-state solution is also problematic in that it divides the people of the region in two when in actual fact there are more differences and more issues. What about the Arab-Israelis who live in what would become "Jewish Israel" for example? What about the Bedouin and Druze who serve in the IDF? What about Christian minorities too? The demographics would be a problem.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

18th December 2009, 09:46

The state of Israel should be abolished and a secular Palestine should be founded, in which all religions and atheists should be allowed to live without opression.

Patchd

18th December 2009, 10:06

LOL!!! That's the best comment I've read. It would be great, but I was trying more to look at the solutions that are being proposed at the moment. ;)
Haha, it was more of a joke comment than anything else :tt2: I know of Anarchists who support statist solutions, although as anti-statists, I don't see why. There are people putting forward anti-statist solutions, what do you expect Israeli Anarchists to be doing?

In addition, I find it ridiculous how people saw how the creation of one state in 1948 led to constant oppression for a group of people based on their ethnicity, and then look at today's situation and think that either the creation of a new state (alongside the Israeli state) will solve everything (when in fact I'd argue that it will most likely lead to something similar to what happened during the partition of India (considering the tensions between the ethnic groups), or that to alienate people by the creation of one state will do the same.

EDIT: Even if the state is secular, it will not remove itself from racism. All you have to do is look at the Turkish state for that.

Angry Young Man

18th December 2009, 13:55

Who the hell said anything about forbidding Jews from living there?

There was some confusion over the distinction between the 'one state' solution and the 'Palestinian state' solution, so the only way one could construe one is that the latter was an Arab state that Jews were forbidden to inhabit. Ofc, I only took it this way because the 'One state' explicitly said 'secular and non-discriminatory'.

18th December 2009, 14:00

^But why would you assume "Palestinian state" is synonymous with "Islamic theocratic state"? Wouldn't it say "Islamic State" if it meant what you're taking it to mean? Plenty of Marxists advocate a Palestinian workers state and, as far as I know, none of them are advocating a theocracy.

Angry Young Man

18th December 2009, 14:42

Did I say anything about theocracy? I said why would anybody on here not pick 'one state, secular and non-discriminatory'; and that by the first option being thus, the latter would be discriminatory.

Revy

18th December 2009, 15:04

It's not just Islamic theocracy. It shouldn't be an "Arab state" like the Ba'athists want. A Palestinian state, yes, but that is merely only a matter of a name and not really one of substance. "Palestinian" would not apply as a demonym only to Arabs like it apparently does now.

18th December 2009, 15:23

Did I say anything about theocracy? I said why would anybody on here not pick 'one state, secular and non-discriminatory'; and that by the first option being thus, the latter would be discriminatory.

But also non-secular, right? I suppose that wouldn't necessarily make it a theocracy.
I suspect it is safe to assume that #1 and #3 are largely the same with regard to the poll results, and that nobody here voting #3 actually advocates a Palestinian workers state based on some Hitlerian concept of racial purity. It is more that #3 is the label and #1 is the description (I voted 3, by the way) of the same idea rather than two distinct options, so I don’t think reading something into it will gain you a very accurate measure of the intentions behind the poll results.

Woyzeck

18th December 2009, 15:54

Not really, I support a two state solution on the basis of a socialist programme.

Because, you have to take in to account the national question of the area, workers in both countries who could easily be turned to reactionary ideals (and most are) because of no clear alternative set out by leftist parties in the region. Most are too caught up in nationalist dogma rather than approaching the struggle on a class basis. Palestine and Israel will never be free unless it does away with capitalism .

The question we should be asking ourselves is not how we solve the palestine/Israel question but how we solve the question of capitalism and reactionary ideas in the region . The answer being a cross border movement based on class unity , opposed to the Israeli brutal attacks and the right wing government , opposed to Hamas and Fatah which offer no solution to the palestinian people and to inter-sect fighting between palestinian groups.

The question of national identity also arises in this case also, borders do not consitiute a nation for staters, culture, a way of life , language, religion etc may constitute a nation . It is clear that having revolutionary parties supporting the destruction of Israel and replacing it with Palestine would have huge consequences in alienating a huge layer of Israel workers .

There is a lesson to be learned too from Soviet support of the creation of Israel, it was bad policy and 99% of leftists would have opposed it because , despite Israeli movements at the time having an anti imperialist movement to them those zionist movements were reactionary, it led to a huge conflict which continues to this day in the form of toil and misery for millions in the region .

Now consider: supporting hamas and the destruction of Israel would result in the continuing conflict in the region the strengthing of the divide between classes based on nationality and religion. Untold misery for jewish people who would be subject to brutal conditions if a Hamas struggle were ever successfull .And would not further the class struggle in Palestine an inch .

It would be the same situation we have now but with a different flag doing the oppressing.

We must approach the question from a marxist perspective of struggle on a class basis, we must fight for the creation of the first mass workers party to work cross border in the region to provide an alternative to the reactionary politics that have ruled the day in both countries . This is the only successful possiblity to this problem and left-nationalist solutions will only prove to be counter productive to the class struggle.

This is a carbon copy of CWI's position on the Irish national question and it is total crap. It essentially comes down to whether or not one recognises that in certain circumstances certain sections of the working class can form a reactionary bloc that prevents the progress of broader working class interests and most importantly, in the context of a military occupation/confrontation, how this serves the interests of imperialism.

Israeli workers are not on an equal footing with Palestinian workers. Their privileged position within the region is directly tied to the deprivation Palestinians face on a daily basis. Likewise in Ireland loyalist workers are not going to act against their own (perceived) self-interest and support the undermining of British imperialism and the advancement of the working class as a whole. Sure they'll support bread and butter issues, but so would racist workers in Britain or the United States, and thus far such efforts have led to no meaningful erosion of sectarian attitudes (– let me guess, loyalists are being provoked by dissident Republicans?).

Comparing the IDF to Hamas and Fatah is sick and exposes a completely narrow and reformist viewpoint on your part that is in no way Marxist. It's like comparing the Mau Mau insurgents to the British military. Since you support a two state "solution" you presumably reject the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland? In fairness you have more important things to be worrying about like not alienating reactionaries, after all it's not the most oppressed and advanced workers we should be interested in but the backward rump that have their heels dug in deep...

Woyzeck

18th December 2009, 15:56

I'm sorry for hyperbole, but to not vote for the 'One State solution' is to piss in the face of socialism. 'Palestinian State' is to define people by nationality and race rather than class - both reactionary and absurd. Forbidding a Jew from living (peacably) in Jerusalem because there is a history of oppression is like Forbidding an Italian from living in France because of the Roman Empire

Except it isn't. At all.

Angry Young Man

18th December 2009, 16:41

But also non-secular, right? I suppose that wouldn't necessarily make it a theocracy.
I suspect it is safe to assume that #1 and #3 are largely the same with regard to the poll results, and that nobody here voting #3 actually advocates a Palestinian workers state based on some Hitlerian concept of racial purity. It is more that #3 is the label and #1 is the description (I voted 3, by the way) of the same idea rather than two distinct options, so I don’t think reading something into it will gain you a very accurate measure of the intentions behind the poll results.

I guess it's and/or viz. theocratic/racist, but if both mean the same thing, then why does there need to be both?

Except it isn't. At all.
Like how? Was France not a Roman colony, or is my classical history very much mistaken?

Woyzeck

18th December 2009, 16:54

Like how? Was France not a Roman colony, or is my classical history very much mistaken?

Your classical history is just fine.

Communist Pear

18th December 2009, 16:57

I support the PFLP and it's attempt at a one-state solution.

Patchd

18th December 2009, 17:38

Comparing the IDF to Hamas and Fatah is sick and exposes a completely narrow and reformist viewpoint on your part that is in no way Marxist. It's like comparing the Mau Mau insurgents to the British military.
You're right, but I hope this does not lead you to support either side. The comparison of the IDF to Hamas/Fatah is indeed incorrect, the latter are by no means more oppressive in a material sense (they can't be yet), and the IDF is responsible for greater oppression and exploitation of not only Palestinians, but also of Israeli workers. But considering the acts and ideology of Hamas/Fatah, it is by no means working class, or even favourable to it in any sense, and should be opposed also.

Yehuda Stern

18th December 2009, 17:57

I support the PFLP and it's attempt at a one-state solution.

Only this "attempt at one state" is a fiction; the PFLP has long since given up on the vision of a Palestinian state and has been making all sorts of accommodations to imperialism and to Fatah. It even argues that it is the Palestinian people's right to give up the one-state solution temporarily - which in other words, means they feel that they have the right to sell out the struggle for one state whenever it is comfortable for them.

Woyzeck

18th December 2009, 18:05

You're right, but I hope this does not lead you to support either side. The comparison of the IDF to Hamas/Fatah is indeed incorrect, the latter are by no means more oppressive in a material sense (they can't be yet), and the IDF is responsible for greater oppression and exploitation of not only Palestinians, but also of Israeli workers. But considering the acts and ideology of Hamas/Fatah, it is by no means working class, or even favourable to it in any sense, and should be opposed also.

I support the Palestinian national liberation cause unreservedly, but not its corrupt, anti-working class and altogether treacherous leadership.

blake 3:17

18th December 2009, 19:19

Socialism can only be built on the idea of class unity not on a nationalist war of independance.

So as a people are being killed and driven into exile, they're supposed to join forces with a workers movement which was formed to oppress them?

Maybe the Vietnamese should have done more to support American munitions workers.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

18th December 2009, 19:49

In this I totally agree with al-Gaddafi:

"Israel is a colonialist-imperialist phenomenon. There is no such thing as an Israeli people. Before 1948, world geography knew of no state such as Israel. Israel is the result of an invasion, of aggression"

Yehuda Stern

18th December 2009, 20:14

"Israel is a colonialist-imperialist phenomenon. There is no such thing as an Israeli people. Before 1948, world geography knew of no state such as Israel. Israel is the result of an invasion, of aggression"

That's a pretty weak argument, especially from a pro-Palestinian point of view; "world geography" to this day knows of no such state as Palestine.

ComradeMan

18th December 2009, 21:22

I support the PFLP and it's attempt at a one-state solution.

Would that be the same PFLP that was allegedly bankrolled by Swiss Capitalist and Nazi banker Francois Genoud, the same guy who put up the money for the legal dedence of Adolf Eichmann?

Among other things, Genoud is notable for being the executor of last will and testament of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels), and for reportedly making a fortune from publishing Goebbels' diaries; later he would attain an equal measure of notoriety for bankrolling the legal defenses of Adolf Eichmann (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann) and Klaus Barbie (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Klaus_Barbie).[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-0) Nazi hunters such as Serge Klarsfeld (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Serge_Klarsfeld) and Simon Wiesenthal (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Simon_Wiesenthal), journalist David Lee Preston and others have asserted that his role as a benefactor for surviving National Socialist interests goes much deeper, offering evidence that Genoud was no less than the principal financial manager of the hidden Swiss assets of the Third Reich after WW II,[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-1) and would use his banking contacts to set in motion networks that later became known as ODESSA (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/ODESSA), which sponsored evacuation of key Nazi leaders into Morocco (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Morocco), Spain (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Spain) and Latin America.

<LI id=cite_note-0>^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-0) "Paper may face legal action on copyright to Goebbels diary" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/paper-may-face-legal-action-on-copyright-to-goebbels-diary-1532799.html accessed May 2009 <LI id=cite_note-1>^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-1) David Lee Preston (1997-01-05). "Hitler's Swiss Connection (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/swiss-and-hitler.html)". Philadelphia Inquirer. http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/swiss-and-hitler.html. <LI id=cite_note-2>^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-2) "Secrecy is Golden (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871430,00.html)". Time Magazine. November 27, 1964. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871430,00.html. <LI id=cite_note-3>^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-3) Alms for Jihad, p. 62 <LI id=cite_note-4>^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-4) The Beast Reawakens (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/The_Beast_Reawakens) By Martin A. Lee 1997, page 181 <LI id=cite_note-5>^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-5) PBS Frontline special on the bin Laden family (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/family.html)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-6) "Francois Genoud, Nazi Sympathizer, 81 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DD1F39F930A35755C0A9609582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)". Associated Press. 1996-06-03. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DD1F39F930A35755C0A9609582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print.

Musa Abdulrashid

18th December 2009, 21:56

What do you think would be the best and fairest solution from a leftwing and/or humanitarian position for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Please vote according to what you think is best:), not necessarily what you think is likely:(.
I think a single secular Palestine is the most fair solution, but when faced with the brutality of Israeli Jews it is possible that many Palestinians would prefer a separate state. I agree with Al-Awda:

Al-Awda unequivocally supports the fundamental, inalienable, historical, legal, individual and collective rights of all Palestinian refugees to return to their original towns, villages and lands anywhere in Palestine from which they were expelled. Al-Awda also unequivocally supports the rights of all Palestinian refugees to compensation for damages inflicted on their property and lives, and to restitution of all destroyed and confiscated property. All Palestinians are entitled to the rights to self-determination, to political, economic and civil equality, and to live in a single democratic state for all its citizens in all of Palestine. The Palestinian national identity encompasses more than 5.5 million people living in exile, more than 2.5 million living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and more than 1.2 million living within the areas of Palestine controlled by "Israel" since 1948.

IsItJustMe

18th December 2009, 22:07

What about the right of return?

I mean this is huge. People don't seem to be aware of it, but it is.

There are millions of Palestinians who are currently stateless. What do we do with them?!

Yehuda Stern

18th December 2009, 23:20

Would that be the same PFLP that was allegedly bankrolled by Swiss Capitalist and Nazi banker Francois Genoud, the same guy who put up the money for the legal dedence of Adolf Eichmann?Are you going to post some evidence here or are we going to have to take your word for it? Because it has been kind of customary for you to kind of, you know, lie and spread all sorts of bullshit Zionist propaganda. So maybe something substantial instead of writing "allegedly" in bold.

There are millions of Palestinians who are currently stateless. What do we do with them?!

Maybe you haven't been following this debate, so I'll just tell you that when CM said that Jews have a "common Yiddish culture", we asked him what about Mizrahi Jews. He never answered. We can only conclude that when it comes to non-whites, CM doesn't really care.

the last donut of the night

18th December 2009, 23:30

voted "other." anarchy y'all!

And how are you aiding class struggle in the 21st century? Hmmm?

Woyzeck

18th December 2009, 23:47

Would that be the same PFLP that was allegedly bankrolled by Swiss Capitalist and Nazi banker Francois Genoud, the same guy who put up the money for the legal dedence of Adolf Eichmann

You've already tried the 'Palestinian self-determination = anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism = Nazism' argument. No one's buying it. Get out of here with your thinly-veiled racist claptrap.

RaÃºl Duke

19th December 2009, 00:34

I've voted for the 1-state option but in the long-term I want to see anarchism in Palestine.

While I don't exactly hate the Israeli people per se, I believe Israel is a vicious imperialist settler/Zionist state who's acts have caused much harm, disrespect, etc to the Palestinians.

If the one state option (secular and non-discriminatory) could only be gained by a Palestinian movement with the aim to destroy the Zionist state then so be it.

PALI

19th December 2009, 02:06

I voted Palestine as a state.

Palestine is a country that belongs to the Palestinians. No one in their right mind should be allowed to come in any country and declare it as their own but unfortunately this world does not give a shit about what you want or what you think. We as the human race are power hungry we can choose to control this thirst but most of us choose not to. The Zionist government of Israel will always be power hungry and will never give a shit about Palestinians or the rest of the world. Do you know why? Because in the mind of the Zionist all Palestinians are dirt and should be treated like dogs correction should be treated worse than dogs. Unfortunately a Palestinians cannot have as I would call it a Gandhi revolution because it’s easier for IDF soldiers to kill you and the rest world to close their eyes and pretend like it never happened. Hahahah and you know the most ironic thing the Rwandan genocide the state of Israel never even lifted a finger to help you think they would with the holocaust happing and what not. I truly believe Palestine should be their own country.

"Their is to much bad in this world for good to exist"
Not sure

Coggeh

19th December 2009, 03:02

This is a carbon copy of CWI's position on the Irish national question and it is total crap. It essentially comes down to whether or not one recognises that in certain circumstances certain sections of the working class can form a reactionary bloc that prevents the progress of broader working class interests and most importantly, in the context of a military occupation/confrontation, how this serves the interests of imperialism.

Israeli workers are not on an equal footing with Palestinian workers. Their privileged position within the region is directly tied to the deprivation Palestinians face on a daily basis. Likewise in Ireland loyalist workers are not going to act against their own (perceived) self-interest and support the undermining of British imperialism and the advancement of the working class as a whole. Sure they'll support bread and butter issues, but so would racist workers in Britain or the United States, and thus far such efforts have led to no meaningful erosion of sectarian attitudes (– let me guess, loyalists are being provoked by dissident Republicans?).

Are you seriously saying Israeli/ Loyalist workers can't support a class movement on a national basis? it is in their interests to support a workers movements we must break through the perception as we do with all workers. Do you think all the socialist movements in Israel compile of only arab workers? or that socialist movements in the north don't have members who come from loyalist backgrounds?. If you mean a loyalist now can't join a movement (which is also false); well , if one did they wouldn't be a loyalist now would they ?

Of course their haven't been any huge meanful erosions in the north of secarianism at its core. But point to me what option those workers had? where was the alternative?

As for the loyalists being provoked by dissidents? of course they are! material conditions shape workers consciousness, bombings that kill civilians drive workers away from the republican cause. Unless theirs a real alternative to sectarian divides it most likely will draw them to loyalist convictions. And don't go snarling that oh its the republicans fault so, i didn't say that its just common sense that the actions of dissidents would only increase sectarianism.And as marxists we have an obligation to provide the alternative to workers.

Their is always going to be workers who side against their class in a revolution, but trying to build a socialist democracy whilst supporting outright one cause of a sectarian divide resulting from imperialism rather than drawing a Marxist conclusion and saying the only way to ultimately succeed when faced with this problem is to build a unified workers movement and not giving critical support to extreme reactionary movements that hide under the banner of "anti-imperialism".

Comparing the IDF to Hamas and Fatah is sick and exposes a completely narrow and reformist viewpoint on your part that is in no way Marxist. It's like comparing the Mau Mau insurgents to the British military. Since you support a two state "solution" you presumably reject the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland? In fairness you have more important things to be worrying about like not alienating reactionaries, after all it's not the most oppressed and advanced workers we should be interested in but the backward rump that have their heels dug in deep...

I compared them only as so far that they are both reactionary leaderships of workers on both sides. Of course the struggle of Fatah and Hamas were born out of anti-imperialism and the IDF a form of colonialism. However neither offer any solutions to workers. This was the point i was making: apologies if it was unclear.

Where did i say i rejected the right of palestinians to return to their homeland? I obviously do support that right. Stop throwing accusations around.A two state socialist solution would not deny the right for Palestinians to return to Israel or visa versa.

Siding with the most oppressed does not mean watering down our politics of class unity and anti sectarianism to suit a certain cause. We support the right for armed resistance of Palestinians and we supported the right for organised resistance of communities and unions in the north against the police and of sectarian groups who attacked workers homes.While at the same time building an alternative that seeks to offer a real choice to workers if such a movement existed in the Palestine/Israel it would be successful as most palestinians for example trust neither Hamas or Fatah (who have both in the past supressed revolutionary workers movements) and seek a new alternative.

ComradeMan

19th December 2009, 09:36

I think a single secular Palestine is the most fair solution, but when faced with the brutality of Israeli Jews it is possible that many Palestinians would prefer a separate state. I agree with Al-Awda:

There you go. Note the words Israeli Jews- not Zionists not the Israeli government but de facto Israeli Jews.

ComradeMan

19th December 2009, 09:52

Are you going to post some evidence here or are we going to have to take your word for it? Because it has been kind of customary for you to kind of, you know, lie and spread all sorts of bullshit Zionist propaganda. So maybe something substantial instead of writing "allegedly" in bold.

Well, I used the word allegedly in order to be fair, but you would not know what that means.

June 3, 1996
LAUSANNE, Switzerland, June 2— Francois Genoud, a Nazi sympathizer who became a banker for Arab militants and defender of terrorists, committed suicide by poison on Thursday with the help of a Swiss pro-euthanasia group, a family spokesman said. He was 81.
Mr. Genoud, who made a fortune from publishing the diaries of Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, helped set up the Arab commercial bank in Geneva in 1958. The bank was active in lending money to Arab nationalist groups and held the fighting fund of the Algerian independence movement. In a biography published this year, Mr. Genoud said he had worked closely with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out attacks against Israel and Jewish interests. Mr. Genoud was a friend of the terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal and helped finance his defense after his 1994 arrest. Mr. Genoud also helped pay for the defense of the former Gestapo chief Klaus Barbie, known as the Butcher of Lyon.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/03/world/francois-genoud-nazi-sympathizer-81.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

There is alson an article on the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/12/MN192483.DTL

And there are references to the facts all over the net.

Maybe you haven't been following this debate, so I'll just tell you that when CM said that Jews have a "common Yiddish culture", we asked him what about Mizrahi Jews. He never answered. We can only conclude that when it comes to non-whites, CM doesn't really care.

Interesting how you twist things. I never said anywhere that Jews have a common Yiddish culture. That is a claim that your "prophet" Schlomo Sand makes. I said Jewish people had a common language, i.e. Hebrew, the language that Jewish people by and large have taken with them and preserved wherever they have gone even when it was not their spoken language. That is why Yiddish is full of Hebrewisms and Judaeo-Spanish is full of Hebrewisms and Judaeo-Italian is full of Hebrewisms and so and so on.

You offer no explanation for your crackpot theories only by diverting your answers to strawman arguments. If we were to listen to you we would be forced to believe that the Jewish communities around the world just sprang up like mushrooms all over the place--- now, where have I seen that before? Jews being compared to mushrooms.

You and your friend contradict yourself all over the place. One minute one or other of you was saying that there was no Jewish people and then the next minute one or other of you said that despite being an atheist he was "ethnically" Jewish. You can't be ethnically anything unless you belong or perceive belonging to an ethnos (Gk. nation).

Yehuda Stern

19th December 2009, 10:54

Used the word "allegedly" to be fair... I wonder what that even means? If you had evidence all along, you should've just posted it then isntead of being sneaky.

And yes, you did speak about a common culture, even though it was shown again and again that such a culture does not exist for Jews.

You keep lying, still: I can't recall anyone said he was "ethnically" Jewish, but even if someone did, ethnicity and nation are very different concept. You should really work on your understanding of these terms.

ComradeMan

19th December 2009, 11:42

Used the word "allegedly" to be fair... I wonder what that even means? If you had evidence all along, you should've just posted it then isntead of being sneaky.

Well investigate the links for yourself. I am sure you will probably say they come from some weird Zionist conspiracy or other. If you bothered to read the message you would have seen the sources at the bottom- you should've read them instead of being obtuse.

And yes, you did speak about a common culture, even though it was shown again and again that such a culture does not exist for Jews.

Common culture yes, tradition, language, religion and sense of Jewishness might serve just for a start. I never said that all Jews eat gefilte fish and latkes or speak Yiddish did I? You are the one who keeps saying it has been shown here and demonstrated there! By whom exactly? By you and those whose opinions you choose to believe. I have exposed your fanaticism and hypocrisy on this subject all over the place and in turn all you can do is get aggressive and make accusations of mendacity whilst refusing point blank to discuss any of the points raised.

You keep lying, still: I can't recall anyone said he was "ethnically" Jewish, but even if someone did, ethnicity and nation are very different concept. You should really work on your understanding of these terms---

Well I do recall somewhere or other, I suppose you or he will have a quick edit of their message too. You are the one who seems not to understand what the meaning of ethnicity and nation are, and as for saying ethnicity and nation are very different, well seeing as ethnos is Greek for nation and nation derives from Latin natio, meaning more or less "that into which one is born"- they are to all intents and purposes synonymous.

19th December 2009, 12:00

I can only assume, since I have been arguing with ComradeMan quite consistently elsewhere, that the last part of his comment is a reference to me, so I will address it, and he can correct me if he was referring to someone else.

One minute one or other of you was saying that there was no Jewish people and then the next minute one or other of you said that despite being an atheist he was "ethnically" Jewish. You can't be ethnically anything unless you belong or perceive belonging to an ethnos (Gk. nation). People who were born to Jewish parents and speak Yiddish are considered Jews by everyone else where I come from, regardless of whether they prefer to identify as such or not. If I used the word “ethnicity” – which I don’t recall using, though I certainly may have – I have no doubt that I put it in quotes to imply that it isn’t quite the correct term but would have to suffice because I assume people can figure out well enough what I mean by it without it being necessary for me to launch into a 10-page disclaimer about the intricacies of “Jewish identity” in the US when it isn't the topic of discussion.
What the fuck does this have to do with this thread, though, and how is it at all relevant to the "argument" you're trying to make about a (mythical) nation?

EDIT: Actually, I went back and found the comment in question, and I never said anything about ethnicity to begin with...

ComradeMan

19th December 2009, 12:09

Yazman

19th December 2009, 12:16

I think that some people hold this idea that one day Israelis will be "banished from the Palestinian lands when we make the glorious Palestinian workers' state."

I think the idea that second, third, etc. generation Israelis should have to suddenly up and leave what is also their homeland is just as ridiculous as Israeli oppression of Palestinians and evicting them from their own homes.

The fact is, there are millions of people in both lands and expecting either of them to just disperse to other parts of the world is disgusting and irresponsible.

I feel that the one-state solution is one of the only solutions that would allow for a reasonable solution and justice to occur.

19th December 2009, 12:18

People who were born to Jewish parents and speak Yiddish are considered Jews by everyone else where I come from, regardless of whether they prefer to identify as such or not.

Oh well, where you come from people think that so that's how the rest of the worlds think too.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth, but I was explaining to you the reason I've identified as a Jew (i.e. because that is how I have been identified my whole life, and that is how people who speak Yiddish and who were born to Jewish parents are identified where I live) and clearly peoples' self-identities are molded by the accepted views in the society and immediate environment in which they live, not the way people in other parts of the world would identify them. Nice try, though.

Yazman

19th December 2009, 12:19

ComradeMan

19th December 2009, 14:31

Yazman

19th December 2009, 15:11

ComradeMan

19th December 2009, 18:00

I'm not criticising the idea of a Palestinian worker's state (I support it of course), just in case somebody decides to be silly and cherry pick that part of the post. I'm just saying - there are now significant populations of israelis who live there who never had a choice in the matter, and forcing them to leave just isn't feasible anymore.

40, 50 years ago? Sure. In 2009? Definitely not. This doesn't mean I am defending Israel, nor zionism - I am an especially harsh critic of the two.

So am I. I have been saying this all along. But some chose to attack me for daring to suggest there were a Jewish people and not jumping on the bandwagon of some of the dubious groups that they promote. A non-secular one state solution with equality for all and in which the Jewish people could have their right to self-determination along with the other peoples. I am sad to say though, that I don't think we'll see it in our lifetimes. The two state solution seems to be the only "compromise" that either side can come up with- which still leaves the problem of Jerusalem....

Getting back to the issue, someone the other day on one of the threads said "a plague on both their houses", and I must admit I do sometimes wish someone would bang both groups' heads together. At the same time we have to understand that it is not as simple as dividing it into Palestinians and Zionists as some do all the time. Technically any non-Israeli born Jewish immigrant is a Zionist if you think it about it- well according to some definitions, but they are not all like those nutcase settlers who vandalised a mosque last week- and let's not forget that it was not a Palestinian who shot Rabin either!!! Then we have the problem of the people born in the land, regardless of their immigrant parents or grandparents and so on. I think the Jewish people should be allowed to live in their historic and spiritual "Holy Land"- but not at the cost of others and in the way that all EU citizens can leave in each others' countries. Surely there is enough room for everyone, if you can cram 15 million Dutch into the Netherlands I am sure that Israel could have a feasible population of up to 25 million!

On the other hand I think the Palestinians also have been the authors of their own downfall in some respects and suffered from bad leadership and very poor decisions. Although no "war" is without dirty hands I don't recall the ANC in South Africa (who did perpetrate acts of violence) murdering innocent athletes and blowing up planes and hijacking etc. Not a great way to bring people round to your cause. The Arab world at large also has a lot to answer for in that they stirred up all the crap so to speak and then left the Palestinians out to dry. Palestinians are treated like dirt in many of the surrounding Arab nations. I would also say that the Europe and the US must take their share of the blame too. In fact, no one comes out of this smelling of roses. Like I said before it's all a mess, and a hell of a complicated mess too.

I just hope that there will be a triumph in the human spirit and the ordinary people on the ground can stop suffering- on all sides- and get on with their lives.