Hi from Israel

[Alonso Quijano]

24 year old Marxist, non-Lenninist

.The bad: Paranoia, no class awareness, racism, tribalism, workers not organised.

The good: All distinctions apart from proletarians and capitalists could just fall out of use. It is commonly said by people that we have only two classes. I support a party who won almost no votes, but gaining recognition, and lots of sympathy, aiming to grow, claiming that all previous ethnic distinctions only serve the capital. We need to demand freedom in the Palestinian territories, but first unite, Arabs and Jews of whatever domination. Led by a popular Arab woman activist (I'll search for English language material later).

Been reading 24/7 for the last week. Truly believe there is a chance - Israelis have no faith in current parliament and parties. One million people demonstrated two years ago, without one defined agenda other than "social justice", but even then centre parties are too impotent to push for reformism - which is good. I think the challenge is to get people to understand there's no other way than formation as a revolutionary class.

Most people still buy into the Bourgeois propaganda telling working people they're not proletarian because the work isn't physical or in factories for most. But all work demands no skill and pays by the hour. If we save to buy something nice, as saving for a home is impossible, they say we're spoiled. But answered: We work all day every day! We shall not apologise for wanting to enjoy life. Israeli economics is "growing" for many years, but we make the same money, get less working hours, and prices for rent and food are going up. I think now both "traditional middle and low classes" have the conditions to unite, at least moreso than any other developed country.

Many of us work and deserve. The fact that others suffer more shall make us one, not rivals.

We had no labour movement for years, as people were made to believe that we're divided and should hate, wh when even the whitest European Jew can't afford rent. People want to leave. Especially the young.

Just because we supposedly have an advanced economy, and just because we're told that some of us our privileged when we claim to feel as slaves, and just because we didn't fight previously - we have the the privilege of seeing where capitalism automatically goes.

Still no movement to speak of. But you hear the people blaming the "owners of capital" as we call them in Hebrew, saying we're degraded to work meaningless jobs for peanuts. And more and more polls show that having a Jewish state is less important to the young generation, and that people claim to worry about mortgages and not about war. They suddenly seem to all despise all apartment owners, trade-union-politicians selling us out, and shareholders. All this out of the blue, spontaneously. After the first elections focusing on economics it still looks bad, not yet organised, not yet fully understanding socialism, real one, but it won't disappear quickly.

Now the need is to make them understand Marxism.

Say I'm only dreaming but I honestly believe progress can be made here.

The old parties are less efficient parliamentary than the SPD of Weimar, every year another one of them promises change, it comes as no surprise they can't even provide reformist illusions.

The situation is horrible - with just the right conditions to revive Marxism.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

Do you think the Israeli colonial settler state should be overthrown? I'm just asking because in this whole lot of text I don't see a mention of this basic engine of this conflict.

[Alonso Quijano]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

Do you think the Israeli colonial settler state should be overthrown? I'm just asking because in this whole lot of text I don't see a mention of this basic engine of this conflict.
Thanks. If by colonial you refer to the occupation itself - I don't think it's colonial. The government doesn't have any aims or ideology apart from maintaining the status quo:
Why do you think they slowly build there, and announce it with pride after promising not too? Because they don't want to build, they won't to procrastinate. For a government here the greatest achievement would be to convince the left you want to negotiate - but avoid it. The status quo is always better, therefor it doesn't matter how many Jews support ending the occupation - what matters is whether there are people against it who will protest. A spontaneous protest for ending the occupation is not something they predict soon, so they're good to go.

And, as bonuses:
*The left stupidly thinks that only because of settlements we have economic troubles.
*The Palestinians are more angry - no occupier wants a peaceful resistance, he wants to agitate things to claim they're terrorists.
*Arabs in Israel feel estranged even further, less chance of then forming with us a unified class.

The Palestinians are victims. But also freedom for them won't be achieved under Hamas or Fatah. Them ruling is obviously good to the Israeli government for this reason.

Most Israelis don't know what goes on there everyday. The government doesn't want us to know. In addition, the problem is that for those who claim the occupation's wrong it's "not part of Israel". Actors famously refused to perform in settlements, claiming the theater can't make them as a response to questions about this possibility, because their contract say nothing of performing abroad.

Just abolishing the occupation/apartheid there will give you nothing. Our problem is not the conflict in Israel proper, it's economics. It's the Palestinians' tragic problem. If we can form a movement that will insist on self-emancipation of the proletariat, it has the the biggest oppression. But even if it's more urgent to stop their suffering, you can't make the Israelis demand it without first showing them that they can't be free themselves in this situation.

[Q]

If the Israeli/Palestinian conficted is rooted solely in economics, this wouldn't at all explain anything as most capitalist states are like this yet don't see a colonial project going on.

With the Israeli colonial settler project I'm not just referring to the occupations on the West Bank and Gaza. I'm talking about the very foundations of Israel itself as a project that explicitly attracts Jews from all over the world to "come home" in Israel and start a new life. This is the very essence of Zionism. Zionism then is also the cause of the occupations going on in the West Bank and Gaza. These settler projects have historically always had ethnic cleansing as a goal, you could look at the American and Australian settler projects for comparison. A major difference here is that Israel explicitly only targets Jews to come to Israel.

The overthrow of the Israeli state is therefore a precondition for any resolution of the conflict. Yet this isn't easy or straightforward, given how Israel was established as a "little Ulster" in the Middle East, in the service of imperialism. This service to and support from imperialism is indeed essential for the continued survival of the Israeli state.

A first step is therefore to be expected from the region as a whole: The unification of the Arab East (the Arab world on the peninsula plus Egypt) under the banner of the working class, while difficult enough, seems the most straightforward route towards achieving lasting solutions. In this context imperialism would no longer have any strategic interest in maintaining Israel and the regime would likely be soon isolated. In this situation then most Hebrew workers could be cut loose from the Zionist paradigm and turned against the state. In the end, the Hebrew community could, like for example the Kurdish nation, become a self-determined nation in an Arab union.

My political views on this matter are mostly defined by Moshé Machover, founder-member of the Matzpen group (http://www.matzpen.org/) and who wrote a useful book on the subject recently (http://www.amazon.com/Israelis-Palestinians-Resolution-Moshe-Machover/dp/1608461483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381474341&sr=8-1&keywords=israel+and+palestine+machover&tag=thelinactsho-20).

[synthesis]

Do you dispute that ethnic cleansing and repopulation has occurred in the occupied territories to some extent? If so, how would you differentiate between that state of affairs and colonialism?

[Alonso Quijano]

Do you dispute that ethnic cleansing and repopulation has occurred in the occupied territories to some extent? If so, how would you differentiate between that state of affairs and colonialism?
Ethnic cleansing occurred less in the territories and more during the Nakba...

Colonialism must have a home country. Zionism isn't colonialism as it acts as the home country itself. The territories are either part of the state or they're not, according to those who support or condemn the occupation. I'm not defending it, I just don't see how it's colonial.

Ethnic cleansing wasn't means of colonialism in Germany, for example. You may claim that for the oppressed Zionism isn't different from colonialism, I can accept it as possible.

[Alonso Quijano]

If the Israeli/Palestinian conficted is rooted solely in economics, this wouldn't at all explain anything as most capitalist states are like this yet don't see a colonial project going on.

With the Israeli colonial settler project I'm not just referring to the occupations on the West Bank and Gaza. I'm talking about the very foundations of Israel itself as a project that explicitly attracts Jews from all over the world to "come home" in Israel and start a new life. This is the very essence of Zionism. Zionism then is also the cause of the occupations going on in the West Bank and Gaza. These settler projects have historically always had ethnic cleansing as a goal, you could look at the American and Australian settler projects for comparison. A major difference here is that Israel explicitly only targets Jews to come to Israel.

The overthrow of the Israeli state is therefore a precondition for any resolution of the conflict. Yet this isn't easy or straightforward, given how Israel was established as a "little Ulster" in the Middle East, in the service of imperialism. This service to and support from imperialism is indeed essential for the continued survival of the Israeli state.

A first step is therefore to be expected from the region as a whole: The unification of the Arab East (the Arab world on the peninsula plus Egypt) under the banner of the working class, while difficult enough, seems the most straightforward route towards achieving lasting solutions. In this context imperialism would no longer have any strategic interest in maintaining Israel and the regime would likely be soon isolated. In this situation then most Hebrew workers could be cut loose from the Zionist paradigm and turned against the state. In the end, the Hebrew community could, like for example the Kurdish nation, become a self-determined nation in an Arab union.

My political views on this matter are mostly defined by Moshé Machover, founder-member of the Mazpen[/URL].
About colonialism - I answered in my response to the other comrade. About the roots - the roots have nothing to do with how governments agitate the conflict nowadays. In hindsight, Zionism didn't give the Jews what it promised. If we're internationalists, showing how those designated as privileged are better off abolishing it is more important of the obvious claims about damage to the Palestinians, which no sane person can deny.

As I differentiated, Israelis today have an independent identity and culture than a fake pan-Jewish one. When Zionism was first conceived, by the way, it did not speak about a state, and there was later a debate whether Zionism should be cultural or political. As always in conflicts, the paranoid extreme wins. Overthrowing the state is not a goal, just as establishing a socialist one isn't. Overthrowing the dogma that Jews need a state which defines them specially is what needs to be overthrown.

Arabs in Israel proper don't feel occupied, they feel mistreated and held back. At least those I know, and those organised or protesting.

I'm not defending the Nakba, and won't argue that Zionism was doomed.

Trust me that I know the Mazpen :)

[Q]

Colonialism must have a home country. Zionism isn't colonialism as it acts as the home country itself. The territories are either part of the state or they're not, according to those who support or condemn the occupation. I'm not defending it, I just don't see how it's colonial.
This is not the case in settler colonies: The USA became its own nation, Australia became its own nation too, etc. Israel is confirming the rule.


Ethnic cleansing wasn't means of colonialism in Germany, for example. You may claim that for the oppressed Zionism isn't different from colonialism, I can accept it as possible.
What I'm saying is that Zionism is a particular form, a specific ideology and set of institutions, of a settler colonial regime.


About the roots - the roots have nothing to do with how governments agitate the conflict nowadays. In hindsight, Zionism didn't give the Jews what it promised. If we're internationalists, showing how those designated as privileged are better off abolishing it is more important of the obvious claims about damage to the Palestinians, which no sane person can deny.
Agreed. In fact, this whole discussion about the 'demographic timebomb' (the relative faster growth of the Palestinian population as compared to the Jews) is causing nightmares for the Zionist regime. With most of the Jewish immigration streams now depleted, it is clear the Zionism is an historic dead end. The overthrow of the Israeli state as a Zionist regime and the unification of the Arab East are the only humane ways forward.


As I differentiated, Israelis today have an independent identity and culture than a fake pan-Jewish one.
This is certainly true. In fact, this is also what historically has happened in cases of settler colonial projects: The American identity, the Australian identity, etc.


Overthrowing the state is not a goal, just as establishing a socialist one isn't. Overthrowing the dogma that Jews need a state which defines them specially is what needs to be overthrown.
While formulated differently, we seem to be close to eachother actually.


Trust me that I know the Mazpen :)
Cool. What do you thinkabout the work of them and Moshé?

[Alonso Quijano]

1. Yes, but they got their independence from the colonising state, and were not conceived as such. I don't think Israel is a British colony.

2. Zionism is a vague term whose meaning causes lots of debates between Israeli Jews. There is what Zionism came to be in practice, but it's not a specific ideology. I can't put links but Chomsky once spoke about that.

3. While I agree about the humane possibilities, I'm not sure it will fall soon based on demographics alone. At least I hope not. I'm also afraid that to the common Israeli the instinct will be that we're doomed as human beings and not that we should cooperate... I'm not saying it will fail - I'm saying it already has.

4. No debate here.

5. Wanted to say that myself...

6. Unfortunately it was a private discourse, not a public one. They were ahead of their time, then it was a much bigger taboo to say what they said.

Matzpen itself divided, and then its divisions again... I think their only significance is that people from one of those groups founded Da'am - the party I support. Da'am itself is somewhat Quixotic. Instead of opportunism they choose to insist on Marxist perspectives, and believe that one day it can happen. That's what first made me appreciate them though I don't respect other parties. Voted for them even though didn't enter. They do have a chance to win seats in the Tel-Aviv - Yafo council, more specifically a group supported by them and headed by their chairman.

[Blake's Baby]

Welcome to RevLeft.


24 year old Marxist, non-Lenninist...

Interesting. I don't have much more to say on that presently - just to let you know that not everyone here who considers themself a Marxist is a Leninist either.


...

Just abolishing the occupation/apartheid there will give you nothing. Our problem is not the conflict in Israel proper, it's economics. It's the Palestinians' tragic problem. If we can form a movement that will insist on self-emancipation of the proletariat, it has the the biggest oppression. But even if it's more urgent to stop their suffering, you can't make the Israelis demand it without first showing them that they can't be free themselves in this situation.

I hope that you can convince people of this. My own view is that the unity of the Israeli and Palestinian proletariat is the only way to stop all the murderous criminals who claim to speak for either community. Rather than talk of 'destroying Israel' the working class needs to confront both Israeli and Palestinian nationalism. Replacing one with the other is not a viable tactic.

[Sasha]

Very welcome, I'm an non-zionist cultural Jewish anarchist (of some sorts) myself. Prepare to be called a Zionist by resident idiots once in a while, just refer them than to this intro thread because I must say you explained your positions really clearly already.
I must say I'm hardly familiar with "your" party (i and those that I know in Israel are more leftists from the Anarchists Against The Wall variety) so I would be very intrested to hear more about your experiences, positions and struggle.

[Alonso Quijano]

Sorry for the (very) late reply - Da'am is not exactly MY party, though if I can find the time and mental strength to know I can commit I would like to be active there.

It's a small party - 15 thousand "likes" on Facebook, but only 4000 votes or so. I think it's because people appreciate Asma, the leader, but don't believe the party can get the votes needed to enter the Knesset. That's why I'm committed to keep voting for them, at least unless something very unexpected will happen in Israel politics. We have to try and make it stronger in order for more people to take it as a serious contender, at least to enter for the minimum 2 seats.

I think people don't quite get what Asma says. She is very convincing, everything she says is spot on and she knows how to approach people (the most major aspect of a Marxist party, I think), but they still aren't convinced that the party really is THAT different, and that modern social-democratic parties can do nothing but lean more and more to the right as time passes by, and are inherently flawed, in my opinion.

The "left" parties here:
The labour (same shit everywhere, don't really need to explain, do I?)
Meretz - good intentions - too weak, and are identified with the Ashkenazi "old left", though they don't want to be, they just can't break through their image, and that reflects in their whole platform, and their list.
Hadash - so-called Marxist-Leninist. Their only "communist" faction is Maki, who supports Syria. The rest are Arab factions who build on tribalist vote in the Arab sector (people you know, from your town/family, etc. - Asma does come from a known family, so does her husband, but she rejects the sheer thought of using this to gain votes from people who don't really understand the party). They have one Jewish "fig leaf" as we say in Hebrew (just as Meretz tries to get an Arab one for their list), whose a great Knesset member. Honest, truly Socialist if not Communist, who choses to use the platform. But I can't vote for that thing anymore (though I did in 2009).

Regarding the conflict: All, theoretically, support a two-state solution and against the settlements and the nationalist right. In practice: When the Likud goes to war - the Labour will back them. Meretz will vote in favour, because though we created Hamas, if they shoot rockets it can be legitimate to shoot back at them - but then always changed it mind, seeing that the army hurts innocent people without stopping. You'd think they'd learn that lesson by the 3482949238th time it happened. Hadash always votes against - and it's a good point for them.

Da'am are the only ones calling for a revolution that will dispose capitalism. How? Less important right now. More important to get people to agree on that stance. Da'am is in favour of self-reflection and self-criticism, so if it aspires to lead something, you can't speak of practical ways (right now we have guidelines, which look not-that-different from, say, Hadash) until you have the proletariat behind you so they can help choose the practical method. That's at least how I get it.

The Arab nationalists call her a traitor, because she refuses to support identity politics, she says that Israel is responsible for Hamas ruling, but that giving them an independence doesn't really free the Gazans, and regarding claims that she should also talk about divisions between Jewish ethnicities - she points to the fact that these are just old mechanisms. The enemy is the universalist capitalist class. Not everyone there is Ashkenazi. More Ashkenazim, yes, but that shouldn't be a goal for underprivileged people, should it? Moreover, she bravely says she doesn't think Jews are really that privileged. They suffer less, thanks to that old divide & conquer strategy, but if you can't afford to pay rent, and spend your life in an office that might be air-conditioned, but kills you mentally and spiritually (that she didn't exactly say, but I add, about the character of "white collar" work these days) - you should wake up and see that there's nothing here for you in these present system and structure. Now, in order to really gain something, we should ALL unite. For that, we must fight for the Palestinians as well. And for that, we, ALL OF US, should put borgeois-driven ethnic conflicts out of our way, and so Da'am supports every cooperation, in every way of life as I understand, between all people. This shouldn't be a "political pact", rather a true new universalist society.

I'm sure it's not easy for an Arab woman to see beyond what she must feel, and I would probably as well if I were in her shoes, and approach Jews instead of blaming them. It's not about blame, it's about waking up. Also, a secular Arab woman leading a party is great news for Arab society, which is more sexist than the Jewish one (not that ours is perfect, yes?). I don't think that people, especially the young ones, really believe that women belong in the kitchen. So the best way to fight sexism is for women to take charge. People aren't inherently racist as well I think, once they get used to the situation of working together for a unified society they'll abandon any sectarian instincts they once had. Or at least so I hope.

Now the next step is to recruit Jews more than Arabs, who won't support her just yet, according to what we see in practice. Jews are more likely to, they actively seek change, though many are apathic - the Arabs are REALLY apathic when it comes to the general elections. I personally wouldn't vote if it weren't for them. So, now the next step is to approach the so-called "middle class", who seeks to change things because he can finally realise that this "class" is a make-believe joke that cannot possibly last, and finally see how his neighbours used to feel all this time. But he has more power to fight. At least for now. Once enough Jews are in, if we can make it - the Arab population will finally see an Arab leader working for his interests as a proletarian, and seeing that she has a Jewish crowd backing her up, they can finally give up their natural distrust of Israeli politics. If an Arab woman could convince Jews that they SHOULD fight for Arabs as well as for themselves, and it came from class consciousness, it means that THIS is when we can start kicking thing off. I hope.

That's at least my theory, for the now.