Moshé Machover

[Q]

While listening to this introduction (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/podcasts/marxism-fringe-israelis-and-palestinians-conflict-and-resolution) where Moshé Machover introduces his new book, Israelis and Palestinians: Conflict and Resolution (http://www.amazon.com/Israelis-Palestinians-Conflict-Resolution-Haymarket/dp/1608461483/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1342044926&sr=8-2&keywords=moshe+machover), I was wondering what others might be thinking of him.

Professor Machover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosh%C3%A9_Machover) is a longtime Israeli activist. Particularly known for his anti-Zionist stance. He was one of the founders of the Socialist Organisation of Israel, more commonly known by its publication Matzpen ("Compass"), which existed from 1962 until somewhere in the 1980's. You can find an archive here (http://www.matzpen.org/).

About the book: It's an anthology of Machover's writings from the period of 1966 to 2010. The early years see many articles co-authored with other Matzpen members. If you want to read the general gist of the book, I recommend its introduction, which was originally published in the Weekly Worker (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/836/why-i-am-not-an-israeli-peace-activist), titled "Why I am not an Israeli peace activist".

[The Idler]

He's good. Isn't he a one-stater? I prefer Chomsky's no state solution.

[Art Vandelay]

He's good. Isn't he a one-stater? I prefer Chomsky's no state solution.

Who on here, wouldn't prefer a no-state solution?

[Q]

He's good. Isn't he a one-stater? I prefer Chomsky's no state solution.

Actually, as I understand it, he defends a regional solution. In a 1970's piece in the book (which you can also read online here (http://98.130.214.177/index.asp?u=101&p=revolution)) he calls for a socialist union of Mashreq (the Eastern Arab world, including Egypt) out of which the Kurdish, South-Sudanese and Israeli minorities would have full rights of self-determination in the areas in which they form a majority.

In the view of Moshé Israel has an either-or choice as it is completely impossible to build an economy that is even remotely self-sufficient: Either it remains reliant on imperialism, as it is today, and continues its Zionist project of colonisation to form a "homeland for the global nation of Jews", or it breaks with Zionism and integrates itself in the Arab world, as a self-determined community, part of a wider economic region.

So, Moshé is neither one-state nor two-state. He calls instead for the overthrow of the Zionist project and, as such, the Israeli state that embodies this project and for the integration of the Israeli nation into the wider Arab community. This is one of the historic tasks of the Arab socialist revolution.

What I'm not sure about is why he calls for a socialist union of Mashreq instead of the whole Arab world. Do the Maghreb Arabs form a separate nation? This is something I still have to study on.

[Q]

What I'm not sure about is why he calls for a socialist union of Mashreq instead of the whole Arab world. Do the Maghreb Arabs form a separate nation? This is something I still have to study on.

Ok, I thought I'd ask the man himself. The following is from an email conversation and is reproduced with permission.


Dear Moshé,

After listening to your "pre-launch" intro (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/podcasts/marxism-fringe-israelis-and-palestinians-conflict-and-resolution), I purchased your book on my Kindle (glad that there is a Kindle version!) and am currently at about 15% (chapter 8). I have to say that so far it has proved to be a highly fascinating and educational read.

I had a question though: In the early writings (particularly in chapter 5) you call for a "socialist union of Mashreq". Later, in chapter 8, there is a call for a federated union of the entire Arab world, but where Mashreq and Maghreb are two distinct parts in it.

My question is why make this difference? Do Mashreq and Maghreb form two separate nations? Is this still the case (in the age of Al Jazeera)? What, if any, are the cultural, historical and social differences between the two regions? Would it be wrong to simply call for a "federated republic of the Arab world" (not counting the differences between the two regions, but where national minorities have full rights)?


You have put your finger on a complex question. The two parts of the Arab World are part of the same great national domain but have distinct characters and histories. Virtually the entire Arab world (with the notable exception of Tunisia!) was at one time under Ottoman rule. But the Maghreb eventually fell under French imperialism, whereas in the Mashreq Britain was the dominant imperial power (with France playing a subsidiary role, in Syria-Lebanon). This led to somewhat divergent paths of cultural and economic development. So Arab national unification is a correspondingly complex issue.

In my articles, depending on the time they were written, there are different formulations between which there is some tension. I resolve this tension (or apparent contradiction) in my most recent essay dealing with this topic. It is the penultimate chapter in the book and consists of an article that appeared in Weekly Worker 757, February 19, 2009.

In that article I say:


"It is of course impossible to foresee the exact form that Arab national unification
may take. But some general predictions can be made. It is quite clear that a democratic
Arab union must be fairly decentralized and have federal structure, with a
suitable measure of local autonomy. This is so for two reasons.

"First, notwithstanding all the historical, linguistic, and cultural features common
to the entire Arab world, there is in it a great deal of local diversity, on which a centralized
state structure cannot be superimposed democratically. For this reason, too,
the union may have to take the form of a confederation linking two distinct subfederations:
one of the Arab East (Mashreq) and the other of the North-African
Arab West (Maghreb)."

Best wishes,

Moshé


Dear Moshé,

Thank you for your clarification. I'll surely finish the book first before asking more silly questions which are already treated in it.

Although, there is another question for which I think it is not treated in the book. As a member of the Dutch CWI I of course take special interest in the Israeli/Palestinian CWI section, regarding this issue. Now, the CWI position has some resemblances to yours, in that there is talk of a regional socialist federation. On the other hand there is also talk of two separate states within this federation: One for Israel, one for Palestine.

To quote a recent article (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5280) on the subject:


Instead, breaking with capitalism and imperialism is essential – calling for two socialist states in a socialist confederation of the region – as the only basis on which workers can solve the issues of land, housing, refugees, economic development, water rights and Jerusalem as a shared capital, to build a decent future for all.

A more original source can be found here (http://maavak.org.il/maavak/?content=3), as far as I could decipher with the translate function in Google Chrome.

Are you aware of this position? If so, what is your opinion of it?


This may not be a coincidence. All Marxist anti-Zionist groups that have existed in Israel since the 1960s, except the "official" CP and its subsequent debris, stem directly or indirectly from Matzpen.

Matzpen was originally a non-sectarian Marxist group, in which there were various informal tendencies, including Trotskyist and Maoist (or quasi-Maoist) ones. From 1970 on, there were several sectarian splits, in which 2 Trotskyist sects and one Maoid sect split away.

For a brief account of this history, see http://98.130.214.177/index.asp?p=140

These sects underwent further splits, and splits from splits, as is the common practice of self-styled "Leninist" sects. These groups inherited various parts of the original positions of Matzpen, some more, some less.

I am not sufficiently familiar with the CWI section in Israel (Socialist Struggle Movement) to know whether there is a personal continuity of lineage with Matzpen; but I would not be surprised if the heritage of Matzpen has percolated to them.

In fact, the positions of the Israeli CWI are in many ways similar to those of Matzpen. For a summary of the latter see

http://98.130.214.177/index.asp?p=principles

Even the colour scheme of the websites are similar...

[As for the quote you're referring to.]This was more or less the position of Matzpen, but usually phrased differently. We spoke of not of "separate states" but of "component parts" or "cantons" of the federation; and instead of saying "one for Israel, one for Palestine" we spoke of the two peoples: Hebrews (aka Israeli Jews) and Palestinian Arabs.

I touch on this in the penultimate chapter of the book (to which I referred in my previous email); see footnote 14 and main text to this footnote.

[Olentzero]

Interesting! I picked this up in Chicago at Socialism 2012 but haven't gotten around to reading it yet (I scored some 12 books overall). Will have to keep this conversation in mind when I finally get to the book.