debate about the solution to the Israel and Palestine conflict.

Hey guys, first of all let me say that I'm glad to be back...I hope ya'll didn't forget about me.

Anyways I've been disusing with Eric a member of another socialist party (Socialist Organizer) about the solution to the conflict in Israel. As you may or may not know the C.W.I. pushes for a two-state socialist solution, while the so called socialist organizer goes for a 1 state solution. First of all what do you guys think, and also what do you guys think about our little debate(see bellow) what's your opinion on the conflict with Israel and Palestine.

(this is Eric explaining socialist organizers position)
hi jose

the question i wanted to discuss with you today was the CWI's position on Israel and the "national questions" more generally (for example, their rejection of Black nationalism in the U.S..) unfortunately, the CWI has a "left Zionist" position in support of the state of Israel, which is a colonial racist settler state.

Here is our position:

Palestine and Israel: a Marxist critique of the "socialist" two-state approach:

Generally speaking there are two approaches adopted by the Left which purport to point the way towards a resolution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Most of the Left supports struggling towards the formation of a single, bi-national state, which would be secular- embracing Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists, Hebrew and Arabic speakers, and which would be fully democratic.

Some on the Left though support the establishment of two separate states: a "socialist" Israel and a "socialist" Palestine. The basis of this argument is that Jewish workers must be given the assurance of their own state, and that this is a precondition for solidarity between Jewish workers and Arab workers.

In this article I aim to show why the second option is a corruption of socialist thinking, more in line with a Left Zionist apology for the continuing existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

Israel is a colonial-settler state

The problem in Palestine did not start with the recent onslaught of Israeli military forces, purportedly in reaction to suicide bombings. Nor did it start with the 1967 war.

Israel came into being as a colonial project: an alliance between European Jewish Zionists and the Western imperialist powers. The Zionists asked for European support in settling Palestine, in return for which the state to be established would be a beach-head for Western imperialism.

This project was finally blessed by the United Nations, after collaboration between the United States and the USSR, both of whom hoped to gain the allegiance of the newly-founded state of Israel. The wishes of the Palestinian people did not figure in these dealings. In 1948 Israeli military forces overran the bulk (78%) of Palestinian land. The rest of it was occupied in the 1967 war.

In all of this the absolute bulk of the Israeli/Jewish working class was a conscious collaborator in the Zionist project. The Histadrut- the Israeli peak trade union body-was (and remains) one of the bastions of Zionism. As far as possible Palestinian labour was to be excluded from Jewish enterprises. Where this was not possible, Palestinian workers had to join the Histadrut, but not on an equal footing with Israeli/Jewish workers.

With billions of dollars annually from the USA, Israel has become not only a military, but an economic enclave of imperialism in the Middle East. Ignoring for a moment the extraordinary inequality of Israeli society-which consigns "Israeli" Palestinians, some of the Jews from Arab countries, Ethiopian Jews, African and Asian guest workers, to poverty-the average income of Israelis is around USD $17,000 per year, while that of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, prior to the destruction of April 2002, was one twentieth of that.

The South African parallel

Apartheid South Africa was founded on White supremacy. The Left in South Africa and internationally understood that national liberation was an essential part of the struggle for a socially just society. The Left there did not argue for the retention of some White territory (a "Volkstaat") to safeguard the interests of the White working class. It argued that the interests of entire working class- African, Asian, Coloured and White-were inseparable from the dismantling of Apartheid.

So why should Israel be treated differently? Why should the interests of the Israeli working class be defended above the quest for national liberation of the Palestinian people under occupation? Why are the "sensitivities" of the Israeli working class placed above the need for a real resolution to the racist nature of the state of Israel? In other words, why is a resolution to the occupation of the Palestinian people subordinated to the supposed interests of the Israeli working class?

Is it so easy to "forget" the clear-cut Marxist tenet of support for the nationalism of the oppressed against the nationalism of the oppressor?

The liberation of the Israeli working class cannot be achieved separate form the liberation of the Palestinian people. As long as the Israeli working class remains attached to Zionism - to the separate existence of an ethno-religiously racist State - it cannot liberate itself. There can be no basis for the building of socialism.

Israel is a racist state

The very existence of the state of Israel is premised on racist supremacy, its core identity is as a state for Jews:

-the state came into being through the colonial, military dispossession of the Palestinian Arabs;
-full citizenship rights and privileges only accrue to Jewish Israelis; indeed they are available to everyone of Jewish family anywhere in the world;
-Israel can only retain its exclusively Jewish character by denying millions of Palestinians the right to return to their land;
-at the same time it cannot resolve its internal problems while occupying the rest of Palestine - the Occupied Territories of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, which includes the expansion of Jewish settlements, the creation of Palestinian Bantustans and control over all natural resources.

The very question of borders remains unanswered. Where should they be drawn - along the line of the 1947 United Nations decision? Or as established after the 1948 war? Should Arab communities in 1948 Israel be swapped for Israeli settlements in the Gaza and West Bank? And what of the territory, belonging to other Arab states, occupied after 1967 and 1974?

Are two independent states viable within the historic borders of Palestine?

What is on offer from imperialism to the Palestinians is a semi- autonomous "state" with non-contiguous territories, on less than 22% of Palestine. Palestine would not be truly independent, its labour force and economy would be completely dependent on Israel. It would be disarmed, without international borders, and unable to determine the great environmental and resource challenge of the region. It would lack full sovereignty over energy, water, telecommunications, airspace, fishing rights, trade.

On the other hand, it seems impossible for Israel to retain its Jewish character without some form of forced separation from the Palestinians, or the "transfer" (expulsion or ethnic cleansing) of Palestinian populations across the Jordan River. Already, within the international borders Israel today controls, there are 5.5 million Palestinians, the majority without any citizenship rights, many still exiled from their family homes.

A "socialist" Israel?

For Israel to become socialist a number of things have to be achieved. Israel would have to:

-establish equality of all citizens as individuals and as national groups;
-establish the equality of Arabic and Hebrew as national languages;
-abolish the Law of Return and racist citizenship criteria;
-secularise law, health and education;
-remove all the religious symbols of the state;
-distribute the provision of water, transport, energy and communications equitably;
-recognise the right of return of all Palestinian refugees, restitute their confiscated land and pay compensation;
-expropriate the Israeli bourgeosie and overthrow the military-state apparatus;
-rupture its relationship with U.S. imperialism and establish peaceful relations with neighbouring countries.

However, in carrying out this agenda, a socialist Israel would cease to be Israel, which by definition is a state for Jews.

The slogan of a democratic, secular and bi-national Palestine (adopted by the PLO in 1973) is the proper democratic-national revolutionary demand. But, because of the dynamic of permanent revolution, it is also a transitional demand. In other words, it cannot be achieved without the overthrow of capitalism (the present- day Zionist state) and imperialism.

As long as the Israeli working class maintains its support for Zionism it will be unable to move towards socialism. As long as its loyalty remains towards the bourgeois State of Israel, its interests will remain subordinate to capitalism. No amount of class struggle-in the factories, the universities, etc.-will change that.

Instead it will cling to its privileges relative to the dispossessed Palestinian people.

As Marx once pointed out (in relation to the Irish struggle), the working class of the imperialist nation will remain in chains as long as the colonized countries remain unfree.

(this is me explaining the C.W.I. position)
To Eric:

Well to begun with, I apologize for taking so long to answer back.

The perspective that we have about the two state solution with Israel and Palestine is the following. Israel is indeed an imperialist state. Although after WWII it became evident that the jewish people needed a land of their own we opposed the creation of Israel, not only because it was a state created to promote the western imperialist agenda, but also the jews themselves pretty much chose the most dangerous place for them.

But now we can't ignore that Israel has pretty much settled in the occupied territory. We therefore have to come up with a solution. We support the two state solution starting from the fact that whether we like it or not, jews and Palestinians don't want to leave in the same state, we can't force them. Remember that we can't create a socialist state with the oppression or opposition of a nationality. Therefore we have to compromise. For example, Lenin was willing to compromise with the Anarchists, that he offered them a part of Russia so they could try living with no state. Of course with the civil war this was never made into a reality, but you can see the point. Another example is the agrarian situation in Russia. We as socialist favor collective farms as a more economically advanced way of producing food, nevertheless Lenin and Trotsky saw that in order to win the peasantry over their side, they had to tell them that they would give parcels of land to each peasant. This was done with the idea of later on advancing and move on to collectives.

Our two socialist state approach is the same. In order to win the working class of Israel we compromise to a two state solution. Then after the overthrow of the ruling class in Israel, the two socialists states can be formed in a democratic manner. This would then open the possibility for the working class of Israel and Palestine to discuss, and possibly unite since the ruling class with its racist nationalism won't be there to divide the workers. We proletarian internationalism indeed, but we can't force different nationalities to live together, that's why we take a step back with the two state solution, to open the possibilities of a single, democratic, socialist state in the future.

And yes, from what you and I have read, it seems that the biggest difference between S.A. and S.O. is on national issues. I already explained to you our position, and why at least from our perspective is the proper solution. Now don't think I'm dogmatic or sectarian, I've read some of your material also regarding "black nationalism" and I disagree, but nevertheless I'll still cooperate with S.O. in all the common ground what I can find, and I'm also keeping an open mind about our difference. Ultimately it will see by the results which approach is the correct one.

Anyways see ya, on Thursday.
-Jose.

A two state solution is not a compromise at all when you consider that both the Palestinians and the Israelis should have equal rights, that their states are secular states, that there are no borders and that minorities within each country have the same rights as the majority. But the struggle for this solution doesn't start with the revolution nor can we wait for socialism to magicaly transform the current state. it is something we should fight for today. Eventually only the working class is in favor and capable of the struggle for democratic solutions, so we must dominate this struggle.

Of course you realize that the 2 state demand would also entitle democratic rights for any Israelite or Palestine worker. This too being something impossible under the current Imperialist Israel, and therefore leading to or pointing at a workers revolution as a solution.

This too being something impossible under the current Imperialist Israel, and therefore leading to or pointing at a workers revolution as a solution.

Yes. But my points is that the proletariat should fight for a democratic solution at the present day. Even though a democratic solution is only fully possible through the social revolution, that doesn't mean that the working class should restrain from political struggle and keep itself occupied with economic struggle. That wouldn't be a solution at all because only the organized political struggle gives the proletariat the training it needs to let the social revolution succeed. That's why socialists need to fight and program the two-state solution.

Btw, when democratic demands are achieved by the proletariat, it can only put an organized working class in a much more advanced and favorable position to keep the fight for socialism going. The political struggle places socialism on the agenda, it doesn't make the working class feel that socialism is something for the indefinite future

Just a correction here, the CWI doesn't just call for a two-state solution, but for:

An independent, socialist Palestine, and a socialist Israel, as part of a genuinely voluntary and equal socialist federation of the Middle East, will be the aspiration of future mass struggles to end national, social, and economic oppression.

Source

The being part of a federation as opposed to seperate states, constitutes a qualitative difference as we're calling for the greatest unity, while respecting the national question and right of self-determination.

Bullshit. "Socialist federation" is just a term you guys throw in to cover (badly) your very real aspirations for separate states. The fact is that you don't expect socialism or the workers' movement to solve questions of national and religious differences, so you've decided to opportunistically tail the consciousness of Jewish workers by telling them that they won't have to live side-by-side with Arabs after the revolution.

It's essentially the same solution as David Ben-Gurion and the Histadrut had to the problem ninety years ago: separate "federated" Jewish and Arab workers' organizations so that the Jews could build their Eretz Yisroel without Arabs or the principle of internationalism getting in the way. Except it's a hundred times more pathetic than that because we've now been through decades of exactly what that policy resulted in. Back then they at least had the excuse of not knowing what the fuck they were doing.

You're comparing a socialist federation with the same situation as in capitalism. This shows your lack of insight in the very different nature of both social systems and of the need to solve the national question in a socialist manner. The comparison you could make best I think is with the early USSR, which was federated in much the same way.

There is absolutely no basis to compare the two situations.

Why not? Russia was imperialist withing the Russian empire. After the revolution, the oppressed nationalities where granted self determination, and with that those that still wanted to be with the Russians were able to form confederations with them.

I would ask you here how the Israeli working class can be won over, and also why they must be. Israeli workers have a very real role in the oppression of their Palestinian brethren that extends far beyond their mandatory military service. They derive very real benefits in the oppression of Palestinians, and will never see their own interests in the democratic liberation of Palestine, and will support their own ruling class in this matter to a fault. There will be no overthrow of the ruling class in Israel that does not involve the liberation of Palestine first, and I expect that Palestinian workers will play the central role in liberating their Israeli brethren, rather than the other way around.

The Palestinian proletariat needs the Israeli proletariat because by sheer military strength alone, the Palestinian working class won't be able to end Israelite imperialism. I will just continue an endless conflict where the Palestinian working class will always be the one taking the worst part.

On the other hand, Israeli capitalism rests in the backs of the Israeli proletariat, they along with the Palestinian proletariat have the power to end imperialism.

Yes of course the ruling class of Israel likes to promote zionism and racism to keep the workers of Israel divided against Palestinians, but our task as Marxists is to fight against that. Or why do you even then bother to be a socialist if you live in the most imperialist country of the world? Why don't you just wait until all of latin-america frees itself from US imperialism so you can start promoting the revolution in the U.S.

The problem here lies in where the boundaries of the states would be. As you probably know, within the current boundaries of Israel lies much land that was stolen outright from Palestinian Arabs. For any kind of equitable solution to the problem there would have to be the complete right to return, and for the life of me I cannot imagine any boundaries that would separate pre-1948 Jewish lands from pre-1948 Palestinian lands.

A return to the green line, perhaps?

I would ask you here how the Israeli working class can be won over, and also why they must be.

Well, there's this thing called "class struggle", I am sure you have heard of it.

Israeli workers have a very real role in the oppression of their Palestinian brethren that extends far beyond their mandatory military service. They derive very real benefits in the oppression of Palestinians, and will never see their own interests in the democratic liberation of Palestine, and will support their own ruling class in this matter to a fault.

This is hardly a fact. i would be curious just what you base this on. Is the Israeli bourguise more friendly towards "their" workingclass? I think not.

There will be no overthrow of the ruling class in Israel that does not involve the liberation of Palestine first, and I expect that Palestinian workers will play the central role in liberating their Israeli brethren, rather than the other way around.

not necessarily, but indeed a worker's revolution in either country would quite certainly be followed by a revolution in the other, that is if we have worker's organizations on both sides working in solidarity. this is also the prerequisite for defeating the palestinian bourguise. No "compromise" with the israeili ruling class but mutual solidarity with teh workingclass.