Why "two-states" is not the solution for Palestine

[BobKKKindle$]

Why "two-states" is not the solution for Palestine - Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=9373)


The massacre at Qana is typical of the malicious brutality with which Israel has conducted all its wars, not just the present one. It poses the perennial question of how Israel can ever coexist peacefully with the rest of the Middle East.

For over 30 years the Palestinian movement, supported by much of the left and progressive opinion worldwide, has had an official policy for addressing this question - the two-state solution.

The idea is that a settlement could be reached between Israel and the Palestinians allowing the two to live side by side peacefully in separate, democratic states. The late Yasser Arafat, president of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), justified signing the 1993 Oslo Accord by arguing it was a step towards a two-state solution.

But the experience of the “peace process” since Oslo has produced very clear evidence that the two-state solution cannot work. One reason is the massive imbalance of power between the two sides.

Israel is one of the greatest military powers in the world, backed and subsidised by the US. In contrast the Palestine Authority (PA) is given limited authority over a fragmented territory, and is financially dependent on outside powers such as the European Union that can withdraw their support at whim, as Hamas has discovered.
Israeli policy has worked to perpetuate this imbalance - to keep the PA weak and dependent.

Supporters of a two-state solution argue that this state of affairs is a consequence of the malevolence of Israeli politicians, and maybe also by the incompetence of their Palestinian counterparts. This argument fails to address the reason that the Israeli leadership gives for all the measures that weaken the PA - the need to preserve the security of the Jewish state. This is more than just hypocrisy.

Israel is a settler colonial state - in other words, a state on territory seized from the original inhabitants and occupied by privileged outsiders backed by the Western imperialist powers. All settler states face the problem of what to do with the people whose land they stole.
Solution

The best solution - from the settlers’ point of view, of course - is extermination, ideally stretched over several centuries. The US, Canada, and Australia bear witness to the success of this policy.

Another solution is to turn the original inhabitants into the settlers’ labour force. This happened in South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, and Algeria. This has the big disadvantage that sooner or later the dispossessed get organised and take the country back, as they did in all these cases.

The Zionist colonisers drove out millions of Palestinians, most to neighbouring countries. The rest are still subject to Israeli rule, which to differing degrees they resent and resist, with enormous sympathy from the Arab masses.

The result is to leave Israel in a permanent state of insecurity. It lives alongside those it dispossessed, in a state of perpetual war with them.

Israel can’t exterminate the Palestinians - even the Nazis needed the cover provided by the Second World War to attempt the Holocaust. Right wing Israeli politicians advocate expelling the Palestinians to neighbouring states, but this would just increase antagonism with the Arab world.

But Israel can’t make peace with the Palestinians. The only real settlement would be one that allowed the millions of Palestinian refugees to return - but this would destroy the basis of Israel as an exclusively Jewish state.

So any Israeli “settlement” with the Palestinians is necessarily phoney. Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister who embarked on the “peace process”, did so on the cynical assumption that the PLO was an undemocratic organisation that could enforce order on the Palestinians. Hence a dose of real democracy - such as Hamas’s election victory - threatens to blow everything apart.

The only real way out lies in the policy that the PLO abandoned in the mid-1970s - a single secular and democratic Palestinian state in which Jews and Arabs, Christians and Muslims live together on the basis of equality. This may seem completely utopian amid the present carnage. But don’t the horrors currently unfolding demand radical solutions?
This article is actually from 2006 but the arguments need to be constantly re-stated, especially given recent events in Gaza. The SWP is one of the only socialist organizations that supports a one-state solution as the only way to ensure a just and durable peace in the Middle East. The article posted above shows that, from its inception, Israel has been based on the theft of land from the Palestinian people, as a state intended to enhance the interests of one ethnic group at the expense of all others, and has been able to maintain this system of oppression with immunity from the condemnation of the international community and oppressed people of the world because Israel is backed militarily and economically by the most powerful country in the entire world - the United States. This stems from the fact that Israel exists to protect the vital economic and political interests of the US, as well as other countries which have the same global interests as the US, such as the UK, in the Middle East, a region of increasing importance due to global shortages of oil and other key natural resources. If this is understood, it becomes clear that Israel cannot be allowed to exist, as doing so will obstruct the resolution of some of the most pressing issues surrounding the conflict, including the right to return, access to religious sites, and the question of how a future Palestinian state would be able to sustain itself economically if it remains divided and at the mercy of a hostile power. Most importantly, by calling for a two-state solution, groups such as the CWI and AWL are implicitly suggesting that Jewish and Muslim workers would never be able to live together in peace and each require their own separate governments, despite the fact that this is historically untrue, given the interaction between the two communities prior to the influx of Zionist settlers, and is against everything socialists stand for.

"From the river to the sea" is not a slogan - it's a description of the only way to delivery justice to the Palesitnian people.

[redguard2009]

Yes, before the influx of Zionist settlers came along, Jews and Arabs lived in relative peace. But unless you're suggesting that the entirety or atleast majority of the zionist population (re: those subscribing to zionist ideology) be removed from Israel to allow the remnants to live peacefully with Arabs, there's little that can be done to relive the past.

From the very outset, it was Jewish settlers who drove Arabs from their homes and land, and many Arabs felt and feel today that the only acceptable solution is for all occupied and stolen land to be returned to them -- even though the original owners may not still be alive. This would require the Jewish population to revert to the state it existed prior to 1945, which would mean a hell of a lot of transient, homeless Jews.

What you're essentially asking is for Arabs to accept the theft of their land and live in peace with the thieves, without any form of compensation.

[mikelepore]

The solution for Palestine is the same as the 1960s solution for Birmingham, Alabama. People have to be required to work with, go to school with, and live nextdoor to people who are members of different ethnic groups from oneself. They may at first resist it, but after the passage of few generations almost all of the bigotry will be gone. Fail to require this and the bigotry will continue forever.

[Devrim]

This is complete abstract idealism. Whether different leftist groups support a 'two state solution' or a 'one state solution' is essentially meaningless particulary when it is very clear to all that there is no solution.

I think that revolutionaries must realise that their is little chance of a solution to the issue in any form.

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

Most importantly, by calling for a two-state solution, groups such as the CWI and AWL are implicitly suggesting that Jewish and Muslim workers would never be able to live together in peace and each require their own separate governments, despite the fact that this is historically untrue, given the interaction between the two communities prior to the influx of Zionist settlers, and is against everything socialists stand for.The right to self-determination does not exist and is not defended because peoples are supposedly unable to live together.

[Psy]

This is complete abstract idealism. Whether different leftist groups support a 'two state solution' or a 'one state solution' is essentially meaningless particulary when it is very clear to all that there is no solution.

I think that revolutionaries must realise that their is little chance of a solution to the issue in any form.

Devrim

Sure there is a solution, the protests within Israel shows there is a chance of workers in Israel solving the problem by smashing their capitalist state.

[Pogue]

Devrim when you suggets there is no solution do you mean within the framework of a capitalist society, or ever?

[Devrim]

Sure there is a solution, the protests within Israel shows there is a chance of workers in Israel solving the problem by smashing their capitalist state.

Devrim when you suggets there is no solution do you mean within the framework of a capitalist society, or ever?

I think that it is highly unlikely that there can be a solution within capitalism. I don't think that the Israeli working class is about to smash their state either. It is not only the Palestinian working class that is tied to nationalism, but also the Israeli too. I think that we won't be likely to see much change in Palestine/Israel without either a huge change in the international balance of power, or massive struggles from the working class across the region giving an impulse to workers in Palestine and Israel.

Devrim

[Pogue]

I think that it is highly unlikely that there can be a solution within capitalism. I don't think that the Israeli working class is about to smash their state either. It is not only the Palestinian working class that is tied to nationalism, but also the Israeli too. I think that we won't be likely to see much change in Palestine/Israel without either a huge change in the international balance of power, or massive struggles from the working class across the region giving an impulse to workers in Palestine and Israel.

Devrim

Isn't that the general communist position on all issues of racism/national hatred though? That such problems can never go away under capitalism?

[Devrim]

Isn't that the general communist position on all issues of racism/national hatred though? That such problems can never go away under capitalism?

No, not really, the standard Trotskyist position is that the national liberation struggles will succeed and then turn into workers revolutions when the working class sees that the national bourgeois is 'betraying' the revolution.

The standard leftist position is to wax on about the undefeated Palestinian struggle.

I am suggesting that we will see very little positive coming from Palestine.

Devrim

[Psy]

I think that it is highly unlikely that there can be a solution within capitalism. I don't think that the Israeli working class is about to smash their state either. It is not only the Palestinian working class that is tied to nationalism, but also the Israeli too. I think that we won't be likely to see much change in Palestine/Israel without either a huge change in the international balance of power, or massive struggles from the working class across the region giving an impulse to workers in Palestine and Israel.

Devrim

A huge change in the international balance of power is already underway, the US empire had been rotting away since the occupation of Iraq and Afganistan, the conflict in Georgia was a turning point when Russia fucked up the US's Georgian puppet and while the US made a lot of noise over it the US just had to accept they couldn't challenge Russia over Georgia as they didn't have enough spare troops to challenge the Russian army. The current economic crisis makes US power even weaker and as the US power erodes as does Israel's power.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well, as some of you many know I support the Two-state federalist socialist solution.

I'm too lazy to argue right now, but in short let me say, that any solution under capitalism and its highest expression Imperialism can not work.

[ckaihatsu]

This is complete abstract idealism. Whether different leftist groups support a 'two state solution' or a 'one state solution' is essentially meaningless particulary when it is very clear to all that there is no solution.

I think that revolutionaries must realise that their is little chance of a solution to the issue in any form.


The reason why this geographic area, in particular, cannot sidestep the class / labor question is because it is *the* trade crossroads of the world. The eastern shore of the Mediterranean is what links the West to the East, and the New World to the Old World. It's the center of the vortex and unless there's a global, working class revolution to resolve the overall class / labor question, this will continue to be Ground Zero for commerce of all kinds, and hence, conflict.

The U.S. South has the advantage of being out-of-the-way, relatively speaking, but there's no avoiding eye contact with the region of Palestine (Israel).


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Devrim]

A huge change in the international balance of power is already underway, the US empire had been rotting away since the occupation of Iraq and Afganistan, the conflict in Georgia was a turning point when Russia fucked up the US's Georgian puppet and while the US made a lot of noise over it the US just had to accept they couldn't challenge Russia over Georgia as they didn't have enough spare troops to challenge the Russian army. The current economic crisis makes US power even weaker and as the US power erodes as does Israel's power.

Saying that a change is under way is very different from saying that it has happened. Yes, I agree the balance has begun to shift against the US. However, for it to allow one of its closest allies to go down, would need a much bigger shift than has already happened. Israel is not Georgia.

There is still no power capable of challenging US/Israelli dominance in the Middle East.

Devrim

[Psy]

Saying that a change is under way is very different from saying that it has happened. Yes, I agree the balance has begun to shift against the US. However, for it to allow one of its closest allies to go down, would need a much bigger shift than has already happened. Israel is not Georgia.

There is still no power capable of challenging US/Israelli dominance in the Middle East.

Devrim

US dominance of the Middle East is already weakened due to the US's failure to occupy Iraq and Afganistan, the US is doing no better then the U.S.S.R did in its occupation of Afganistan (and Iraq is no better), the US army is already having to put down mutinies within its own ranks in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Israel can't crush resistance in Gaza the US has no hope of doing so, as even if the US wanted to send troops it would spread US forces far past their breaking point (and I don't think it would go over to well amoung the US populas).

[Devrim]

US dominance of the Middle East is already weakened due to the US's failure to occupy Iraq and Afganistan, the US is doing no better then the U.S.S.R did in its occupation of Afganistan (and Iraq is no better), the US army is already having to put down mutinies within its own ranks in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Israel can't crush resistance in Gaza the US has no hope of doing so, as even if the US wanted to send troops it would spread US forces far past their breaking point (and I don't think it would go over to well amoung the US populas).

Israel is completely capable of dealing with Gaza on its own. US strength hasn't been dissipated to the point where the neighbouring states backed by huge military force could destroy Israel. At the moment their is no state capable of and willing to destroy Israel.

This is what it would take. The current situation with HAMAS firing a few missiles a day at Israeli civilians offers no threat at all to the Israeli state.

The destruction of the Israeli state would require a new superpower intent on confronting the US domination of the region. At the moment it isn't on the cards.

Devrim

[Psy]

Israel is completely capable of dealing with Gaza on its own. US strength hasn't been dissipated to the point where the neighbouring states backed by huge military force could destroy Israel. At the moment their is no state capable of and willing to destroy Israel.

Israel losing doesn't have to result in being destroyed. Israel could still come out of the conflict in tact but with a much weaker military force due to the US cutting back on military aid to Israel so the US has more money to throw at bankers (in desperate attempts to solve the crashing global market) and Israel losing to military equipment in the conflict that can't be replaced due to its military budget being radically slashed (the US probably won't go into bankruptcy for Israel)



This is what it would take. The current situation with HAMAS firing a few missiles a day at Israeli civilians offers no threat at all to the Israeli state.

The destruction of the Israeli state would require a new superpower intent on confronting the US domination of the region. At the moment it isn't on the cards.

Devrim
Or the US empire collapsing under its own weight. You do realize empires have in past collapsed due to internal crises?

[redguard2009]

There is another possibility, although quite far-fetched, of a broader Arab guerilla movement capable of dealing enough damage to Israel's military machine to the point of weakening it considerably. However, the unity and organization required does not exist; the various Arab guerilla movements of whichever ideology or religious affiliation are fractured and pursuing their own, often conflicting agendas.

Any unification of action, though, would be intensely harmful to the Palestinian population, as it would essentally require a war of attrition with the main weapons being human lives; battering Israel to a point that its military is severely weakened and the sense of outright superiority over its Arab neighbours shattered, which could possibly force Israel to the bargaining table with much less leverage than it currently has.

Unfortunately, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan have no real aspirations to attack Israel. They're too busy focusing on other issues; defense against US imperialism, increasing trade (with both Israel and the west), and maintaining their own socities. The sort of co-operation seen in 1948 and later wars just isn't possible. At best, these states can funnel money and supplies to clandestine Palestinian guerilla organizations.

Iran, despite its vehement hatred of Israel, is too far removed. Its military does not have the capacity to strike Israel effectively, and even if it could, US power in the Gulf and Iraq serves as an important buffer.

I agree with Devrim. The only plausible solution will be the further weakening of America's ability to maintain Israel's military hegemony over the region and the influence of an as-yet determined superpower on behalf of the Arab states. Both China and Russia are still actively involved in military trade with most Arab states (Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc), but not to the level of active military co-operation or support. They will sell military hardware to them, but at a price. As it stands, Russia is more likely to be this "superpower", mainly because if its past relations with the Arab states while the Soviet Union, and its more vocal opposition to Israel. China stands little to gain materialistically from intervention and therefore most likely wouldn't bother getting involved as most of their international policies revolve around economic expansionism.

[Psy]

The problem could be the US capitalist class losing their apatite for empire due to the crisis of capital. If the consumption of oil continues to crash as production continues to crash then what would be the capitalist logic of occupying the Middle East? When you have a deep crisis of capital you don't have wars over resources (as you have little active production) instead you have wars over production (to destroy/accumulate competing centers of production), meaning the US capitalists could start looking for more at occupying the industrial centers of Asia and Europe then the Middle East.

[Devrim]

Israel could still come out of the conflict in tact but with a much weaker military force due to...

I don't see this. I see HAMAS coming out with a much weaker öilitary force though.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I agree with Devrim. The only plausible solution will be the further weakening of America's ability to maintain Israel's military hegemony over the region and the influence of an as-yet determined superpower on behalf of the Arab states.

I would just like to comment that I don't see this as a desirable solution. It means generalised war in the Middle East, and mass ethnic cleansing. Neither of which would be positive outcomes for the working class.

Devrim

[Psy]

I don't see this. I see HAMAS coming out with a much weaker öilitary force though.

Devrim
It boils down to how much the US capitalist class is willing to sacrifice for Israel? Are they willing to sacrifice their rate of profit in the US for Israel, I think not. Thus as the crisis in capital weakens support for Israel will probably weaken amoung the US capitalist class as more US capitalists figure it is more profitable to take the military aid earmarked for Israel and give it to the US capitalist class.

[Guerrilla22]

This proposal is about as realistic as the idea of a two state solution though. The Israeli government has declared over and over again since Oslo that they will never permit a Palestinian state and its backers, mainly the US have shown no interest in pressing for a Palestinian state. On the contrary, they have backed Israel's every move. So really, this proposal is no more unrealistic than the idea that Palestine will ever be allowed to become a state.

[Psy]

This proposal is about as realistic as the idea of a two state solution though. The Israeli government has declared over and over again since Oslo that they will never permit a Palestinian state and its backers, mainly the US have shown no interest in pressing for a Palestinian state. On the contrary, they have backed Israel's every move. So really, this proposal is no more unrealistic than the idea that Palestine will ever be allowed to become a state.

You think the Israel won't reconsider if the US capitalist class took all the money earmarked for Israel in the form of subsidizes for their rate of profit? You don't think the Israeli capitalist class won't demand the Israeli goverment make a deal with Palestine if Israel is bleeding money due aid drying up along with the global market? You don't think the Israeli capitalist class wouldn't attempt a military coup if the Israeli state pursued its own interests at the expense of the interests of the interest of the capitalist class?

[Devrim]

You think the Israel won't reconsider if the US capitalist class took all the money earmarked for Israel in the form of subsidizes for their rate of profit?

The US capitalist class is not going to stop giving money to Israel because of the crisis. It sees Israel as playing a vital role in the Middle East. Do you think that the crisis will induce it to forget about that. Far more likely to go is the 'humanitarian' money that funds the Palestinian bantustan.


You don't think the Israeli capitalist class won't demand the Israeli goverment make a deal with Palestine if Israel is bleeding money due aid drying up along with the global market?

I don't deny that it is possible, but I would expect them to lash out harder, not sit around and work out a deal.

Devrim

[Psy]

The US capitalist class is not going to stop giving money to Israel because of the crisis. It sees Israel as playing a vital role in the Middle East. Do you think that the crisis will induce it to forget about that. Far more likely to go is the 'humanitarian' money that funds the Palestinian bantustan.

You don't seem to grasp the problem if capitalists states have to subsidize the rate of profit, it mathamatically can't work since states don't generate surplus value they only acquire value already in the system. Thus if capitalists states (like the USA) try to subsidize the rate of profit they will burn through their budget quickly as if the state is propping up the rate of profit it can't leach off the rate of profit. We are already seeing this were the subsides to the banks already greatly excessed the yearly budget of the US military. It would get to the point where the US goverment could spend over 100% of its budget on propping up the banks and the rate of profit still falls while the revenue of the US state crashes.



I don't deny that it is possible, but I would expect them to lash out harder, not sit around and work out a deal.

Devrim

Possible but it also possible the capitalist class in Israel pressures the state to crack down on Israeli workers so they can exploit them more thus making the Isrealli army pre-occupied breaking up labor unions in Israel.