Following on from his article earlier this week, leading Palestine solidarity activist Kevin Ovenden responds to the latest events in Gaza
It is far too early to provide a comprehensive account of the impact of the latest Gaza War on the prospects for the Palestinian struggle, Israel and the region as a whole.
But it is clear that the seven day war demonstrated both Israel’s continuing preparedness to seek to solve its ongoing crisis and internal political impasse through war, and at the same time the tighter constraints that exist on account of the Arab revolutionary process and continued resistance to imperialism and Israeli aggression.
In response to questions from and out of conversations with many friends, however, here are some schematic observations and opinions that may stimulate a wider discussion.
1) Friends in Gaza, from across the spectrum, report a great sense of relief. And grief. At least one close friend lost his mother when a bomb hit their apartment block. There is also defiance from withstanding the Israeli assault and from the prevention (whatever people ascribe that to) of a ground invasion. Hamas has been boosted internally. People in Gaza do have a genuine sense of “victory”. There is hope that the siege will fall – quickly and totally.
2) Hamas is also boosted externally and is in the spotlight of diplomacy in the region, despite its continuing proscription in the US, Britain and much of Europe. The political siege imposed since Hamas won the 2006 election is already ended and the West is having to adjust to that. In reality, and through back channels and intermediaries, it already has.
3) Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi and his leadership in the Muslim Brotherhood are also lifted. As every correspondent reported, he received warm praise from Washington, London and even Tel Aviv for his role in the ceasefire. He was able to continue to balance deftly the groundswell of support for the Palestinians in Egypt and maintaining relations with the West and the Camp David accord with Israel. There were, however, significant demonstrations in Egypt from those who rightly feel that Morsi should go much further.
There were further, rival, demonstrations both against and for Morsi on Friday in response to his move to use presidential decree to copper-fasten a number of measures. The Financial Times reported on Thursday:
“Mr Morsi ordered the reopening of all cases relating to attacks on demonstrators – a move aimed at absorbing anger on the streets, which has led to a fresh eruption of unrest and fighting between protesters and police this week.
“But he combined this decision with far more controversial measures, including forbidding the courts from disbanding both the controversial panel drafting the constitution and the Shura council or upper chamber of parliament elected last year [both]… dominated by Islamists from Mr Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood”.
The courts are stuffed with hang-overs of the Mubarak era. But, the measures Morsi took also lock out left and progressive elements from drafting the constitution. Christian and liberal members of the committee have walked out. The left has argued for something like a constitutional assembly to draw up the basic law. Hamdeen Sabahi, the left Nasserist presidential candidate who topped the first round poll in Cairo, Alexandria and other cities, took to the streets on Friday.
So Morsi’s is a move against both wings, as friends in Egypt put it, with an instrument – presidential decree – which arrogates power to the post of president, without any new constitution in place defining legally what those powers are. It’s neither simply a popular plebeian sally to forestall the old Mubarak elements (good), nor simply a Sadat-style prelude to presidential dictatorship (bad). In one sense it has elements of both.
That makes it very important for the left – secular and Islamist – to have an independent position and to find ways in which it can win to itself forces both from the secular, liberal wing and from Islamists who were disappointed with Morsi’s performance during the war and with other policies.
The right, the considerable remnants of the Mubarak state and party, and pro-Western liberals have their own, different reasons for opposing Morsi. It would be a big mistake for the left to be seen to fuse with them. It is equally a big mistake to imagine Morsi’s move is a “shift left” or that greater confidence has allowed a more radical Morsi to break out of a vacillating shell.
There is caution and vacillation still. But there is also a clear political objective in the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood. While the left should reject the Islamophobia and the pro-imperialist sentiment wrapped up in liberal talk of “secularism”, it should not mistake the political objectives of the Brotherhood with its own.
How to respond in these circumstances for the radical left is very hard and very concrete. The experiences of Peronism in Argentina and Khomeiniism in Iran show that in different ways, and also illustrate the great dangers.
3) On account of the perceived success of Hamas, there is now enormous pressure on the Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen to see through his gambit, the bid for recognition of a 1967 Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly next week.
There is massive counter pressure from the US, Israel, Britain and the EU to drop it. One reason why they take the move seriously is that it would give a UN-recognised Palestinian state access to various international legal avenues that non-state actors do not have. The British government’s changing of war crimes law in order to lift the possibility of arrest of Tzipi Livni and others shows how mindful they are of the consequences.
Incidentally – I entirely understand why many good friends on the Palestinian left opposed Abu Mazen’s move last year. I agree with much of their analysis of his motivation. I also agree that there is a great danger – perhaps even intention – of eclipsing the Palestinian National Council as the representative body of the Palestinian people. The PNC comprises representatives of all the Palestinian factions and, crucially, representatives of Palestinians not only in the West Bank and Gaza, but also in 1948 Israel, and in the refugee camps and exile.
Changing the voice of the Palestinians from that to the Palestinian Authority with a seat at the UN could threaten the Right of Return and other fundamentals, and even 1967 borders. But, I do think, particularly in the West, that it is right to make those arguments from the standpoint of backing the Palestinians at the UN and opposing the US et al. When virtually the whole of Latin America, the global south, the Middle East and China backed the bid at the Security Council last year, and the US, Britain, and the worst of the EU states opposed it – I think I know where I want to stand.
Some shifting Palestinian realities
The above three points are fairly obvious. But there are other less remarked upon factors as well.
First, there has been for some years now a rising trend of radicalisation among particularly young Palestinians – on the West Bank, in the camps, in exile and under difficult circumstances in Gaza. They have been raising the Right of Return and the historic Palestinian claim.
It is born out of frustration with Oslo and with “all the old leaders”, though almost all the people I know have no difficulty in distinguishing the abject surrender of someone like Salam Fayyad of Fatah from the continued preparedness to resist of Ismail Haniye or Khaled Mishaal of Hamas, Ramadan Shalah of Islamic Jihad or Ahmed Saadat of the PFLP, who is in an Israeli prison. One aspect of the generational break is that this sentiment finds only a limited reflection in attraction to the more militant Palestinian factions, such as Islamic Jihad and the PFLP (though both of those have been gaining in support).
It is fuelled by disgust at corruption in the West Bank and, naturally in the last two years, by identification with the same generation in revolt in Egypt and elsewhere. There is an ongoing major battle in Jerusalem, for example, which is subterranean for all corporate media in the West. There is a sense in the West Bank and in Jerusalem above all that the clock is ticking – if there is no breakthrough, the city and much of the West Bank will be lost. That is the sense. I’m not saying that is what will happen. One reflection of that reality on the ground is the increased talk – sometimes in ways and from quarters that are not of the left – of a “one state” solution.
But among the young people and the fresh Palestinian forces this talk and more importantly action are certainly of the left. People will remember the tens of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians, mainly young, who peacefully marched to the border at Maroun al Ras on Nakba Day last year. Six of them were shot dead by the Israelis and dozens were wounded. The Palestinians were from families of all the factions and across the spectrum of Palestinian society – a large number from traditionally Fatah families. All six who were killed were in their teens or twenties. Three were from Ain al Hilwe camp. There was a similar demonstration in Syria towards occupied Golan and brave attempts in Jordan to get to the border.
It is this sentiment and generation that powered and leads the global call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions – and sets its programme of demands, which is incompatible with a Zionist-exclusivist state, apartheid, in historic Palestine as a whole. That is why Norman Finkelstein, for example, who believes in two-states on principle and not as a tactical demand, chose to oppose it, unfortunately with his acerbic, sharp intelligence lashing a part of the movement and not Israel and its friends, which he does so well, defending the right and actuality of resistance in Lebanon and Palestine.
This relatively new factor is also growing – as anyone who speaks to the many young Palestinians and young Arabs on demonstrations in London or elsewhere in the West knows.
Secondly, the historic factions are not monolithic. I don’t for obvious reasons want to get into too much detail or to identify people, but there are different trends and currents within the major organisations.
Hamas is of course united in the face of Israeli aggression. But there is an ongoing strategic debate in Hamas – expressed in many ways, including over the succession to Khaled Mishaal. Is Hamas, which was founded as a Palestinian expression of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (the different Brotherhoods in the Middle East are tightly connected ideologically and theologically, but unsurprisingly reflect their own national political realities) essentially just that? Or is it an Islamically-inflected inheritor of the wider Palestinian national revolutionary struggle, which goes back more than 60 years to the general strike of 1936 and the agitation under the British mandate?
Remember: the position of Hamas in that struggle has changed enormously since the first intifada in 1988 and its founding. Until the fall of Mubarak, it didn’t really matter how you answered that existential question. With the advent of a tight-rope-walking Muslim Brotherhood administration in Egypt, it does. And so the debate continues. It informs tactical differences. Should Hamas pursue reconciliation and unity (of government administration) with Fatah? There is a groundswell for unity. Unity would certainly be a step forward. But many friends caution that it can also be a path to unnecessary trimming of the sails. The question people ask is – what is the unity for?
Conversely, a go-it-alone strategy by Hamas does not necessarily entail a more principled and militant stance. Friends also caution against the idea of running Gaza as a de facto confederal province of Egypt, sundering the connection with the West Bank – as a stage, of course, on the path to the recovery of Palestine as a whole. But we know that every proposition must be described by every Palestinian leader as a stage and not the end goal. And look where Oslo ended up.
While the break of the diplomatic isolation of Hamas in the region – it was formerly welcome only in Damascus, Khartoum, Tehran, Beirut, etc – is a big gain, everyone knows that to become dependent on Riyadh or Doha brings a very high price. Saudi Arabia and Qatar don’t simply meddle. Others have done that down the decades. The issue is, in whose interests do these allies of the US – which have relations with Israel – meddle.
None of these questions has an easy answer. That’s why debate will intensify. The actual debate should inform all friends of Palestine. There are some in the West who, in my view, have insufficiently followed the whole picture and are in danger of making errors by viewing only a part of it. So – absolutely Cairo and Ankara were far, far better than Washington or London (how could it be otherwise?) during the war. More importantly they were better than Egypt under Mubarak or Turkey under Evren and his military. But they were not good enough; not good enough for the needs and possibilities of the hour, and not good enough for the serious radical left – religious and secular – in both countries and in the region. It is a mistake simply to cheerlead from Britain. And it is worse if you single out for praise certain trends – the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey’s AKP (which is very similar) – without even acknowledging that Iranian weapons are what Israel recognises as tilting an important military balance between it and Gaza; it and Lebanon. The words of most of us have little effect. But that doesn’t mean that we should not seriously try to make them as precise as possible and be aware of all signals they send.
There is also debate in Fatah. Though I understand why people who support the resistance of the Palestinians praise Hamas and castigate Fatah in toto, it is far true crude. There is an historic left in Fatah, led by the incarcerated Marwan Barghouti, who has appeal across the Palestinian political and social spectrum. There are also differing trends in the Fatah leadership. The very worst and most corrupt elements broke with Abu Mazen. Mohammed Dahlan, the Fatah commander in Gaza who was armed by the West and Israel to destroy the elected Hamas government in 2007 through a coup, has gone. He has gone with around three quarters of a billion dollars and now owns a large strip of the coast of Montenegro on the Adriatic Sea.
Just as in Hamas, the political and ideological trends animate the tactical decisions of Abu Mazen and others in Fatah. To imagine that Fatah as a whole is just a tool of Israel or that its support will just evaporate is simplistic in the extreme.
Thirdly, there is the regional balance. That depends not only on the immediate fallout from the war but also on internal developments in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and indeed across the region. It also depends on how Israel and the US decide to act on what is an absolutely central and fixed policy objective – weakening Iran and preventing even the possibility of a fundamental shift in the military balance. That is also an obsession of the Saudis, Qataris and the Gulf Cooperation Council which is now both the regional hub of capital accumulation (not simply oil exports) and of counter-revolution as a serious force in the US-organised imperialist hierarchy.
Time will tell how all of that plays out, as it will in Egypt, which is pivotal. But time is moving quickly. We will all need to follow events very carefully. But that is from the vantage point I tried to set out in an earlier article: in the West our argumentation and action need to be bent around both the responsibility of our own states and also around the political necessity of our movement – the labour (lower case “L”)/left/progressive/working class movement – taking up these questions in a manner that weakens our opponents here and, in that way and others, strengthens our friends abroad, and us.
Kevin Ovenden on said:
This quote in the FT about Morsi’s measures reveals a lot:
‘“I look at the country from an economic point of view,” said a Cairo-based western observer who approved of the measures. “Somebody has got to cut through the political infighting and to take decisions. This continued stumbling over partisan opposition from the judiciary makes it impossible to govern the country in the pragmatic way it needs.”
At the same time as the US has expressed “concern”.
Kevin OvendenQuote text Reply
listen? on said:
When this ‘war’ is over Tony, will you be moving there to stay, permanently? Since you love it so much.
listen?Quote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Why yes, yes I will. Thanks for stopping by!
(You do have to wonder sometimes. The total time our Scottish friend ‘listen?’ spent, from googling ‘socialist unity’ to hitting ‘submit comment’, was 1 minute 36 seconds. If you take away the fact that they had to scroll down the front page, click the comments link, go to the main article page, scroll down to the comments box, type in their comment and hit “submit”, you’ve got to say that it really does look like they came to this site speciically to post that dull, dull comment.)
tony collinsQuote text Reply
listen? on said:
Listen here baldy, it cannot be that dull a comment, if my 20 word comment generated a 96 word response from you.
listen?Quote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Gosh I’ve really been told, haven’t I?
tony collinsQuote text Reply
andy newman on said:
listen?,
You have been totally pwned there
andy newmanQuote text Reply
John on said:
Hahaha…that reminds me of when I was 12 and me and my pals used to shout baldy at old men in the street.
Now I’m one of those old men.
JohnQuote text Reply
Jimmy Haddow on said:
I see the SWP in Egypt, (Revolutionary Socialists) have done political and theoretical somersaults, once again, on a world social subject.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28611
From this in June earlier this year: “In fact the choice is clear. A vote for Shafiq would be a vote against the revolution. A vote for Mursi is a vote against the legacy of Mubarak and for continuing change. Revolutionary activists will not enjoy voting for Mursi. If they do not do so, however, they are likely to experience the real nightmare scenario—a president cloned from the dictator they overthrew last year.”
And from the socialist worker today, 24 November 2012:
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=30081
“The Revolutionary Socialists call on the revolutionary people to save the revolution which has been stolen by an alliance between the Brotherhood and the remnants of Mubarak’s regime.”
Will the SWP never learn that only the independent action of the working class, and the building of independent working class representation, will determine the social force that will change society?
By the way here is what the CWI said in June this year:
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5785
“Any revolutionary groups joining a MB coalition to keep out Shafiq would soon be tainted by its anti-working class policies.”
Jimmy HaddowQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Jimmy Haddow,
Jimmy, what a miserable, pointless sectarian comment you just posted.
Kevin Ovenden has written two extremely detailed, broad, thought-provoking articles about the situation in Gaza and the issues surrounding the ceasefire. Over the last 3 years, Kevin has put himself on the line in a way that you have never even come close to: Having been brutally attacked by the Egyptian military twice and been under threat from the IDF, he was then kidnapped by the Israelis and held in one of their dungeons. The man knows about the region in a way you could never imagine. The most important thing of course is that he doesn’t believe his politics carry any more weight than anyone else’s – but he makes a strong point of talking to people who are out there, in Gaza, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon and elsewhere, and doing his best to make sense of their experiences.
So, in your first contribution for weeks, what do you do? Do you engage Kevin in any kind of debate? Do you broaden out any of his arguments with issues of your own? Do you augment his points in any way? Do you express comradely disagreement with any of his contentions?
No. You ignore every single word he says, and instead choose to attack another left-wing group.
And not only do you attack this group, you do so in a dishonest, sectarian and cheap way.
As is hopefully very obvious to you, I’m not a fan of the SWP. But your decision to take two tiny quotes from two entirely different arguments, and to use those quotes to insinuate that somehow the SWP actually actively supported Morsi and had no desire for its Egyptian members to take any independent action to locate the fight for democracy in the working class itself, while showing how much more pure left-wing you are then them, shows you as being petty, small-minded and dishonest.
Jimmy, what do you actually have to say in response to what I think are two of the best articles about Gaza in a long time?
Also, why do you think the most important thing you could do was use our comments facility to attack a political group that is nothing to do with either this website or the articles’ author?
You have made yourself look irrelevant, Jimmy. Let me tell you, I am proud to have posted Kevin’s articles. He could easily have got them pubished elsewhere, but he made a point of asking me if I’d like SU to publish it.
His first article on Gaza led to a 25% jump in SU page views in one day. The article has gone viral, with it being posted and re-posted on Facebook; it’s hit loads of left-wing websites in the US, EU and Australia.
Yes, Kevin is an old friend of mine, but I am genuine when I say I think the articles are the best pieces of analysis of the current situation, especially given that his rallying cry is for the left to try harder to understand the complicated relationships on the ground and with each other.
You pale against such analysis. And your sectarian response shows that your world view is incredibly narrow.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Kevin Ovenden on said:
Tony – thank you for your very kind words. I also agree totally with your political points.
As regards to @8, I’m minded of some words from a very great German: “Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.”
No – it’s not from Marx, so my reference to another great German must betray some opportunist or middle class or anti-Marxist deviation. It’s from Schiller:
“Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.”
Kevin OvendenQuote text Reply
jack on said:
No, Jimmy Haddow is right. The SP is brilliant! The SWP is rubbish! In fact, everyone else who isn’t in the SP is rubbish, too! He’s even provided some helpful links to prove it. This is why the SP is the undisputed leadership of the working class.
jackQuote text Reply
Anon on said:
Re: 8
Is this Socialist Party that Jimmy Haddow is so keen on anything to do with the Socialist Party that is descended from the Militant Tendency which used to advocate for several decades that the working class should support and join the anti-working class capitalist parties, the Jamaican Peoples National Party and the Pakistan Peoples Party?
AnonQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
Tony, what we need to remember about JimmyH’s party is that the whole reason for its existence is to be the anti-SWP party of the non-Labour left.
It defines itself in terms of its “non-SWPness” so JimmyH’s contribution here is pretty much what the SP exists in order to do.
Anyway, back to Kevin’s article, this passage particularly caught my attention:
“There is a sense in the West Bank and in Jerusalem above all that the clock is ticking – if there is no breakthrough, the city and much of the West Bank will be lost. That is the sense. I’m not saying that is what will happen. One reflection of that reality on the ground is the increased talk – sometimes in ways and from quarters that are not of the left – of a “one state” solution.”
I’ve never been in Palestine or Israel, but over here, I’ve also heard several recent references to this concept of “time running out” on the idea of a “two-state solution” from different parts of the political spectrum and also I’ve heard people on the left making this point and talking of a “one-state solution.
But if by “one-state solution” people mean a single, integral state encompassing today’s Israel, plus the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, how is this qualitatively different from the idea of a “Greater Israel”?
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
SA on said:
Have a look at the demographics assuming all could vote the new state would not become a greater Israel.
SAQuote text Reply
John on said:
To all intents and purposes, it already is one state, an apartheid state called Israel, in which the lives of 4.5 million people is held under Israeli jurisdiction and their land colonised.
The two state argument is in truth an argument about gaining more rights within and under this existing state of colonisation. There is absolutely no intention on the part of the Israeli state to accede to anything that could be described as an independent, sovereign state as most people would understand it for the Palestinians. None at all. Zionist strategy from a very early stage was to create facts on the ground with this objective in mind.
They’ve succeeded.
JohnQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#13 The 2 reasons that I have personally never liked to get hung up about the issue of two states or one state are that:
1)I believe it is for the Palestinian people to determine whether they will accept the inevitable compromise that two states would involve, and that neither their acceptance or rejection should be a precondition for supporting their struggle.
2) For either to be the beginning of an actual solution a complete transformation of the zionist entity and attitudes that go with it are required.
VanyaQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
“To all intents and purposes, it already is one state, an apartheid state called Israel, in which the lives of 4.5 million people is held under Israeli jurisdiction and their land colonised.”
And therefore, any “one-state solution” is essentially a formalisation of the post-1967 borders.
So I think we need to be very careful not to accept the narrative of “time running out for a two-state solution”.
A fully separate and independent state of Palestine, alongside a separate state of Israel, based on pre-1967 is the only acceptable and fair “solution”.
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#17 ‘A fully separate and independent state of Palestine, alongside a separate state of Israel, based on pre-1967 is the only acceptable and fair “solution”.’
Fair and acceptable to who though Karl?
VanyaQuote text Reply
John on said:
Nailed it completely.
Well said.
JohnQuote text Reply
prianikoff on said:
re #8 and subsequent comments.
MB is clearly led by middle class, socially conservative elements.
Unfortunately, socialist parties are quite small in Egypt, where class-based parties are still banned.
(this despite the fact that an Egyptian Socialist Party was formed long before the Muslim Brotherhood)
So the left has to recognise some political realities;
One is that MB-FJP has won a popular mandate and is locked in a battle with a state bureaucracy, riddled with former Mubarak supporters.
These have been desperately trying to rein back MB.
* El Shater, the Presidential candidate they supported was prevented from standing.
* The Supreme Court then decided that former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq could continue to run for President, despite a Law passed by parliament, that senior officials from Mubarak’s regime were banned from standing for office.
* The lower house of the Parliament was then dissolved by the Supreme Court and Military Council.
These are hardly examples of democracy or an independent judiciary!
Mursi is trying to counter the political manipulation of the elites, which is why the judiciary are leading demonstrations against him.
I’d have thought the biggest danger for groups like the RS at this point, would be to become too closely identified with judges and liberals.
But Bonapartist Presidential powers could easily be used against the left in the future.
There’s not much point defeating the elites, just to let in another Khomeini-style regime.
So they need to retain their political independence, fight for an elected Constituent Assembly to be convened, for union rights and for official recognition for the Workers Democratic Party.
As far as I can see, this is what RS is arguing for.
Their basic premise is that the working class supporters of the MB can be won over to socialist demands.
Is this any different to the tactics that Militant employed in relation to the Pakistan Peoples Party etc.
Perhaps the critics of this approach have supporters in Swat, or in Mahalla?
prianikoffQuote text Reply
John on said:
This observation by Vanya really lies at the heart of the issue. As from it flows the historical parallel, which though not symmetrical, is the closest we have.
South African apartheid ended when the white supremacist establishment there was faced with the reality that it was no longer sustainable economically, politically or socially. The first two of those factors were connected to the pariah status that South Africa had earned by dint of an international solidarity campaign that helped to usher in the sanctions.
Though Israel cannot look forward to sanctions being introduced anytime soon by western governments, it is rapidly moving towards the status of international pariah in the minds of more and more people. We see this in the way it turned back from mounting a ground invasion of Gaza this time round. This is now the kind of military operation its backers in Washington and European capitals are finding harder to justify and support due to the significant shift in public opinion in the West when it comes to the issue that has taken place since Cast Lead.
Israel’s overwhelming military power is now a political weakness, as it ensures that it can no longer claim the mantle of victim behind which it has existed since it was created.
Of course, the continued resistance by the Palestinians can never be diminished in importance. Their resistance by their existence has provided the time and space for this international solidarity movement to develop and grow, which has been key in shaping public opinion.
When Israel reaches the point where the status quo of apartheid is no longer sustainable compromise will have to be faced. The US, a declining power, will not be able to defend the indefensible forever, neither morally nor more importantly economically.
JohnQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
Vanya, a fully independent state of Palestine, alongside a separate Israel on the basis of pre-1967 is the only fair solution for the people who live there.
And I think we should be arguing for UN-led military action to enforce it.
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#21 Thanks John. That is pretty much exactly the point I was making.
And again, it’s why I feel that it is a mistake for those of us in the west to get hung up on the question of two states. The only time that I object to it is when anyone suggests or implies that its acceptance by Palestinians is a pre-condition for supporting them.
It’s also the reason I have no problem with ‘From the River to the Sea’ being chanted on demos etc.
If those who support a 2 state solution believe that it would provide genuine freedom to the Palestinians, what’s wrong with it?
As for the South Africa analogy, I think we also need to recognise that however the existential question of the zionist entity and a Palestinian state are resolved there will be huge struggles ahead in terms of development, social and political justice etc both in that small area and in the wider region.
But that fact does not detract from the fact that the injustice suffered by the Palestinians stands in its own right as a sore that must be healed, and that we who live in the countries that help to perpetuate it have a responsibility to do what we can to change that situation.
VanyaQuote text Reply
Mark Victorystooge on said:
The SWP is, at the very least, opportunistic in its practice in Britain, a relatively stable, not to say stagnant imperialist country. But its co-thinkers in Egypt are operating in a much less stable environment, crisis-ridden and violent. The tendency to opportunism is bound to be magnified by this, since the stakes are so much higher. That their flirtation, and that of other forces, with MB Islamism would end in tears was quite predictable.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/egyp-o15.shtml
Mark VictorystoogeQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#22 But large numbers of Palestinians (possibly the majority for all we know) do not agree with such a solution. The idea of military force being used to impose a solution against the wishes of the oppressed nation is a non-starter as far as I’m concerned.
2 states is a compromise in respect of the rights of the Palestinians as it does not deal with the return of land that was taken from them or the question of the people who were ethnically cleansed from that land.
And only the Palestinians have the right to ok such a compromise.
In the current political reality talk of international military action to impose justice in Palestine makes no more sense than it did in respect of Libya (or would in respect of Syria).
VanyaQuote text Reply
Omar on said:
Slightly OT but I didn’t notice on the BBC website any coverage whatsoever on yesterdays Palestine Solidarity march in London which, according to Kevin, had thousands in attendance. Anyone see any coverage?
OmarQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#24 The use of expressions like ‘end in tears’ takes no account of the question of how long the current situation is likely to go on for until some form of conclusion is reached.
And the problem about terms like ‘opportunism’ is that they have to be viewed in terms of concrete choices availible.
I’ve noticed that for someone who I thought (apologies if I’m wrong) was an old style orthodox pro-Soviet communist, you seem very keen on the website of one of the most hard-core trotskyist factions going.
Next you’ll be telling us that Trotsky’s American secretaru Joe Hanson was a Stalinist agent
VanyaQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
Well my view is that there should be a fully independent state of Palestine alongside a state of Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders and all underwritten by the UN.
And yes, UN military force to enforce it. That’s the only thing Israel understands.
As for the “from the river to the sea” slogan, if that’s what angry Gazans and West Bank residents chant, then fair play to them – I’ve got nothing but the greatest admiration for their fighting spirit and courage.
But it’s not my view and not something I’d support.
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#28 Sorry Karl, but how about dealing with current reality?
Who is the demand for a 2 state solution to be made to? The Israelis won’t accept it at the moment but more importantly it is not the verifiable majority view of the Palestinians.
Is the UN in the current situation going to use force to impose a just solution for the Palestinians? The same UN which recently allowed a resolution imposing a no-fly zone on Libya tto be used by NATO to do the opposite?
There may be good reasons why the Palestinians should at some stage accept the permanent loss of territory that was taken from them and the inhabitants ethnically cleansed from it.
And if they want to do so, fair enough, but that’s their call, not ours.
What we need to do is help create the situation where the Israelis have to accept a solution which provides justice to the Palestinians and until then for us in the west to insist on 2 states is a demand on the Palestinians that they make a compromise that we have no right to demand of them.
VanyaQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
Can’t see what it is you’re disagreeing with here Vanya.
I don’t think the Palesinians should give up one single inch of their land and they should get every single bit back that the Israelis have illegally occupied.
And we should be calling for UN military action to enforce this.
I’m not claiming this would be easy to achieve, but seeing as Israel has been illegally occupying this land since 1967 in defiance of the UN, then I’d say military action is more than justified – indeed long overdue.
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#30 Maybe there isn’t a disagreement.
However, I don’t accept that (a) a 2 state solution (ie the permanent division of pre- partition (or ‘historic’) Palestine is necesarally a just or practical solution to the issue, given that it would require the Palestinians to accept the permanence of the forcible seizure of land and ethnic cleansing of a huge number of their people (in what is now within the borders of Israel), and therefore (b) I don’t think that what those of us in the West who want justice for the Palestinians do about the situation should be based on the idea that 2 states is the goal.
If you are happy with the idea that the Palestinians have the right not to recognise an Israeli state in any form unless a solution acceptable to them in respect of all outstanding issues, including the refugees from what is now Israel has been agreed, then we have no disagreement of any substance.
If your support for the Palestinians is predicated on them agreeing to
2 states then we do.
I would add that in the present political juncture, the 2 state question is an irrelevance in any case because the Israelis in their majority are not interested in it. And talk of military action by the UN is simply pie in the sky.
VanyaQuote text Reply
Noah on said:
Hi Vanya, first I should say that you (& also John) have made some excellent points in this thread. I certainly don’t think the 2 state (or 1 state) issue is or should be the ‘be all & end all’.
I would add that Israeli public (& elite) opinion does not exist in a vacuum. The massive subsidies + diplomatic cover given by the West to zionist military and settler colonialism encourage and embolden the aggressive Jewish Israeli consensus. I say ‘Jewish Israeli’ because the Arab Palestinians who live within the borders of the zionist state, appx 20% of the population, who are subject to blatant racist discrimination, have no part in that consensus.
There is therefore a lot of responsibility on us Westerners.
Also. The withdrawal of Israel to 1967 borders, allowing the Palestinians to have a state with its capital in East Jerusalem, plus the right of return for the refugees (including their descendants ) of the 1948 Nakba, is the current demand of the PLO and we surely ought to support it.
The right of return (or to compensation for those refugees who choose to accept compensation rather than retuning) is a key issue, and often ignored in the West.
NoahQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#32 Subject to what I’ve said above I have no problem with that.
In fact I would see any part of it as welcome step forward.
VanyaQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
Of course compensation claims have to be settled as part of any peace deal.
Compensation claims for the 1947-1967 period are the responsibility of the UN – it’s the 1947 UN partition plan that the whole “two-state solution is based on.
And post-1967 compensation claims are the responsibility of Israel – it’s Israel that’s been unilaterally defying the UN since 1967.
UN military action to enforce justice here may seem to be “pie in the sky” but it is the right course of action and it should be raised.
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
Jimmy Haddow on said:
I have given this reply a couple of days grace to allow my anger to subside due to the arrogant and sectarian contribution by Mr Collins, et al; and for the record I have made a number of contribution in the past few weeks but they have been banned by the editors of the SU website.
On the question of my post I reference the small quotes by linking the full articles so that readers can read the full transcripts as a means to show the somersaults that the so-called revolutionary socialist organisation that is associated to the SWP just does not have the theoretical and strategic nuance in such a critical and fluid situation to be a credible influence. And also to show that their method is an empirical understanding of the events in Egypt and not a Socialist, let alone a Marxist, interpretation of the social events of the political and social world. That is not sectarian but a critical analysis of a social science and political theory that one finds in any bourgeoisie social science journal on the bookshelves of any good bookshop or university. The SWP are fond of quoting George Santayana aphorism “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, unfortunately the SWP have to be reminded at times how quickly they change their position in a few short weeks/months. Which is not a sectarian attack as you think Mr Collins, et al, but a critical analysis of a political programme?
The timing of the attacks on Gaza should not be seen from specifically a moral point of view, but in the general political situation in Israel particularly with the general election in January. The two right wing parties, Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu, want to increase their number of seats in the Parliament and with this in mind have recently joined together; but polls before the attack on Gaza were not showing the level of support they had hoped for.
So their attack on Gaza fits in with their campaigning by distracting the attention of Israelis away from cuts in services and living standards, giving the impression of boosting defence and allowing every other political party supporting the action, because they do not want to be seen as a fig leaf to the Palestinians. Along with the continual propaganda and ideological barrage on the Israeli population that it is the only way to improve security means that the right wing political parties hope they will win a majority in the election.
In Egypt the Brotherhood’s President Morsi is not prepared to confront the Egyptian Elite, despite what happened last week, and still wants to retain support from the Obama administration and the EU; and avoid any outright conflict with Israel itself. Morsi is cooperating with the Israeli security services over the blockade of Gaza and the Sinai; however, there are tremendous social pressures from ordinary Egyptians to help the Gazan people. Running in tandem is all the other events around Israel, Syria and how it will affect Lebanon, the strikes and rioting in Jordan and the continued simmering of the ‘Arab Spring’.
The reality is the pro-capitalist political leaders on both sides of the national divide have no programme to find a ‘peaceful’ solution to the complex problems in the Palestinian and Israeli region. For the Palestinians, neither the right-wing Islamist Hamas nor the Fatah-led authority in the West Bank has a viable strategy for defeating the occupation or for providing decent living standards. Instead, the Palestinian masses need to build their own organisations that can democratically organise defence and take offensive initiatives based on mass struggle – such as against the blockade and land seizures.
In Israel, following the unprecedented social movement involving hundreds of thousands of people last year and this year, a new workers’ party is needed to concretely advance the aspirations of that movement – for decent housing, services, pay, stopping the cuts and so on. It will be through the building of new mass workers’ parties in the region that the pro-big business agendas of the capitalist parties can be challenged and thrown out, and socialist ideas can start to take hold.
That will be the route to building two socialist states – a socialist Palestine and a socialist Israel as part of a socialist confederation of the Middle East, to lay the basis for a future free of war, terror and poverty. This is not some abstract option, but the only practical solution that corresponds to concrete conditions and the consciousness of the Palestinians and Israeli Jews. On the basis of capitalism the goal of a genuine independent Palestine will never be fully recognised.
The struggle for a socialist Palestinian state and a socialist Israel allows socialist activists to win the ear of both Israeli and Palestinian working people, and to forge the unity of the oppressed throughout the region. This demand exposes the reality that there is no capitalist solution, and points to the conclusion that workers and youth need to build a class alternative to the bosses’ parties.
On the basis of building socialism – a society based on need not profits – Israeli and Palestinian workers can decide democratically, and without a hint of coercion or compulsion, the exact character and borders of a future society. The most contentious and sensitive issues, such as refugees, water and land rights, and the status of Jerusalem, can then be resolved. Resources would be equally shared, as part of a planned economy, controlled and run by the working class. A socialist federation would see the free movement of peoples. A dramatic rise in living standards, including a massive house-building programme, would transform the issue of the right of Palestinian refugees to return. Jerusalem, today a disputed city, would probably be agreed as a ‘shared capital city’. Only such a programme, allied to a common struggle on the economic and class issues, can offer a way out of the present grim cycle of wars and national hatreds.
Of course this is all pie in the sky for Mr Collins, et al, when they consider that the Israeli and Palestinian working class must work with the capitalist institutions like the UN rather than use their own strength and build their own organisations as a means to change capitalist society.
I leave you with two videos, one from the Socialist Party Ireland MEP, Paul Murphy, condemning the Israeli assault; and the other from a small working class demo in Israel organised jointly by the Israeli CWI and CP against the military action and the reversal of the government attacks on social welfare at home.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6052
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=buPlC7nr4Zg
Jimmy HaddowQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Now, do you see Jimmy why no one else supported what you wrote in your nasty little comment the other day? If you had bothered to put any politics in it, rather than just use it to have a go at other left wing organisations, people might’ve given you the time of day.
But given that you only bothered to start writing politically because you were “angry”, I would suggest that you rethink how you approach politics.
Here’s the timeline: Kevin wrote several thousand words about Gaza. There was a serious, thoughtful discussion following it. Then you came along and the *only* thing you posted was about the SWP – an orgnisation which none of the SU team is a member of, and neither is Kevin Ovenden.
That’s all you said. You simply attacked an organisation that was nothing to do with any of us. It was irrelevant to the shape of the discussion.
But when I called you out on it, it made you “angry” and you claimed it was “sectarian”. And this anger – which lasted for 2 days! – was enough to *finally* make you write something political. Except this “political” comment was still showing that once again, you are only capable of looking at the politics of Egypt through the things you dislike about another organisation!
Jimmy, I once again want to tell you how miserably sectarian your approach is, and also that you don’t even know what “sectarian” means. Y’see, there was nothing sectarian in me having a go at what you wrote, because I dealt with the fact that your post was entirely negative and irrelevant, given how serious the issues are. But your post was sectarian, because the only thing you thought was important was to point out that the a fellow socialist organisation was doing things wrong and that the CWI was doing things better. You didn’t even have anything thoughtful to discuss about the CWI. You simply stated that one was wrong and the other right – and you did so dishonestly, claiming things about the SWP that even someone like me knows are just wrong.
The worst thing is, you don’t even know who you’re talking about here. You’ve become so twisted in your view that only you and your comrades really get down there in the class and really understand how to fight capitalism, you haven’t even stopped to consider that the two people you’re addressing here – me and Kevin – are among a small group of people who really have gone out there and lived our revolutionary politics; we’re by no means better than anyone else, and we might be wrong sometimes and right sometimes, but we’ve actually been part of organising things politically in a way that you couldn’t even dream. But for you to say “Of course this is all pie in the sky for Mr Collins” is to show that when you reply to someone, you automatically assume that they are doing nothing at all. Jimmy, I don’t like to do this, but when it comes to struggles for socialism and against imperialism, you are talking to people here who have put their lives on the line for it.
Well Jimmy, I can tell you now that the biggest complaint people like me have about people like you is that you deal in nonsense abstractions. You don’t deal with the real world. You deal with a text book. You don’t care about the facts – you don’t even know if there is something we can call a “working class” in Gaza right now, or whether the urgency of the situation is such that for once, class has to take second place in our thinking. You don’t even have any response to anything Kevin has said about the shape of politics in Egypt, except for the idea that somehow, your lot has got it right once again and the SWP has got it wrong once again.
It’s no wonder people hate the left. I even hate the fact that I feel compelled to respond to you, Jimmy. We could’ve spent time getting reports from our friends on the ground and informing the debate. But no, we’re having to deal with the sectarian nonsense of a guy in the UK telling a UK audience that an affiliate of a UK-based socialist organisation is doing something wrong in the middle east and that what we need is socialism and then everything will be ok. It’s fucking tedious.
See, you talk of “the struggle for a socialist Palestinian state”. Once again, pure abstractions. Before I care about the politics of the state, I’d like to stop Israel from massacring children. Not you though. It’s more important for you to follow a set of rules about this thing you call “struggle”. But to fight against Israeli bombs means to get into real world politics right now.
And… you’ve decided that there is to be a socialist Israeli state and a socialist Palestinian state. Who gave you that right? I reject Israel’s right to exist, as I rejected apartheid South Africa’s right to exist. So why have you decided that there is a “struggle” for this state to be born? Why don’t you give the slightest consideration to what the people of the region want? They might want two states; I’d support them. They might support one state. I’d support them. But for as long as Israel exists as a Zionist project, it *cannot* be a socialist state. Don’t you even get that basic truth? It was imposed on a region by driving out the population, and it maintains itself by stealing the resources of other people. It defends itself by relying on largesse from the US. Why do you want to turn this into a socialist state?
What you’ve done, in your “anger” (no anger at what Israel has just done to whole Gazan families, Jimmy? No long paragraphs about the general feeling that Israel was being more reckless than usual with its targetting this time? Just anger cos I called you a name? Anger that lasted 2 days?), is proved that once again you don’t have any real ideas about anything. Your contribution above could be taken word for word for your prescriptions for the EU, or your prescription for the UK, with only the country names changed. How do we stop the Israeli conquest of Palestine? WE NEED A NEW WORKERS PARTY!
Good grief.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#36 Generally I agree with you entirely Tony, but in fairness he has posted links to a video of one of his Irish comrades attacking the Israeli assault and to his Israeli comrades (in alliance with the local ‘stalinists’) demonstrating against it.
I haven’t watched either mind you.
Again, your general critique of Jimmy’s approach including the offending comment a couple of days ago I agree with completely.
I think this lot have a particular problem with the whole Palestine question though. Their sectarianism and oppotunist abstentionism on the subject was one of the reasons I broke from them nearly 30 years ago.
They actually turned up at the Gaza rally in Manchester and one of them spoke last week. I couldn’t believe it!
VanyaQuote text Reply
Kevin Ovenden on said:
I admire your patience, Tony. And the diagnosis of a quintessentially sectarian method is spot on.
There is also the predictable prescription from that quarter that what is needed is a new workers party in Israel (as well as elsewhere) that will fight over housing and cuts – but not, and this was stunningly absent, even for equal civil rights, let alone national rights for the Palestinians within 1948 Israel. And just forget about raising the occupation, the siege, Israeli militarism or the “contentious” questions of water, land, Jerusalem, the refugees.
No. All those “contentious” questions are to be resolved after accomplishing a socialist Israel, socialist Palestine and socialist other states. How will they be resolved? Well, because there will be socialist states. And socialism, like a multipurpose household cleaner – the left’s answer to Cillit Bang, solves everything: from limescale to persistent odours from the sink.
On a serious note, as I really think there is nothing to add to what you said in response to JH and certainly nothing to be gained by extending that discussion, here is an extremely thought-provoking interview with Awad Abdel Fattah, general secretary of the National Democratic Assembly party in Israel.
It is an indication of where the actual discussion is on the Palestinian and wider left, particularly among young people who have been radicalising over at least the last six years.
It might make a post. And who knows, people might engage with it and advance the discussion.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/its-time-for-palestinians-in-israel-to-stand-firm-against-the-bantustan-plan-of-oslo-an-interview-with-awad-abdel-fattah.html
Kevin OvendenQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Vanya – the thing is, I wasn’t asking him to prove his militant credentials. They say they’re socialists, I believe them. Actually I don’t care. It’s his method that I don’t like. The video was only posted because he was “angry” at me calling him sectarian. It isn’t really relevant, cos I’m not accusing him of being pro-Israel or accusing the Socialist Party of not caring about Palestine.
The left as a whole has a real problem with just listening to different people’s voices, and accepting that there are plenty of people who know far more than we do. Too much of the left starts from the position “you’re not in my organisation? that means you don’t know as much as me”. It’s not consciously as crude as that, but Jimmy’s posts are full of it – full of “for those of us who actually go out and talk to real workers” nonsense. The fact is, the political currents represented by the CWI could have a lot of interesting stuff to say that moves the left forward. But Jimmy was only moved to join the debate cos he wanted to have a go at another left-wing organisation, and when he did so, he did it dishonestly and misrepresented what the other group has said and done. If you do that, then post another load of stuff about how bad that other organisation is, it doesn’t really matter if you then post a video of someone saying the right things – cos all you’ve done is put people off already. I’ve got no intention of reading the article or watching the video, cos the guy posted in such bad faith, I’m no longer interested.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Jimmy Haddow on said:
Mr Collins, et al, obviously I do not agree with the thrust of your argument and whatever political expressions I give, you are going to find fault with. According to your philosophy I cannot and am not allowed to give a critique on any social or political subject because it does not develop to your way of thinking. So be it! I do not agree with your philosophy of the world so you go your way and I will go my way and continue to actively campaign, as I have done for a number of years now, for socialist ideas, socialist strategies and socialist change in Scotland, Britain as a whole, and through-out the world; and I will also offer a social and political critique to any political idea or strategy that I consider does not offer the working class an independent strategy to create a new and equitable society.
Jimmy HaddowQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Jimmy, you can give a critique whenever you like. But when we’re talking about really serious issues, you might want to consider making your only post something other than an attack on an organisation that none of us are a member of or have any influence over.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Kevin Ovenden on said:
I’m actually thinking of launching a range of left cleaning products:
Stalin Devil – wipes out those persistent stains on the historical record.
Persil – the colour-blind socialism that washes whiter than white.
Domestos – brought to you by Ilya Ehrenburg and assorted contemporary Berlin leftists: it kills all known Germ-ans, dead.
…
Kevin OvendenQuote text Reply
stuart on said:
Jimmy Haddow,
I’m not going to get into the rationale behind the SWP position on MB, the position is explained in the links that you kindly offer. Readers can agree or disagree, for me the stance taken is defensible when judged in the particular context.
But I think the CWI have a poorly developed position on the Middle East. How do you square calls for workers unity and socialism with the fact that Israeli workers have such a material interest in supporting the Zionist state? I think the problem with this is that whenever violent conflicts erupt, the CWI can end up taking a ‘plague on both your houses’ position, as if both sides are equally responsible. The logic of that is to prevent socialists in the West from expressing solidarity with those who find themselves fighting against the Zionist state.
stuartQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#40 ‘ I will go my way and continue to actively campaign, as I have done for a number of years now, for socialist ideas, socialist strategies and socialist change in Scotland, Britain as a whole, and through-out the world…’
Jimmyy, while you’re travelling the world make sure you send some decent postcards. Tony can put them on the blog. But when you get to Greece don’t send the picture of the green statue of that bloke with a big knob-it’s been done to death.
VanyaQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
Hey JimmyH,
Why did your Socialist Appeal Party split away from SWP in the first place?
Did you guys leave or did SWP expel you?
Genuine question mate?
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
Jimmy Haddow on said:
Without wanting further enmity to fall on to my head I feel that Stuart has a complete misunderstanding of the situation in Palestine /Israel in the first place and the CWI in the second. However, see how the neat way Stuart side steps the SWP somersault over the Brotherhood and takes a wrong swipe at the CWI. Stuart, yes you should defend your international organisations theoretical perspectives on the question of Egypt because it will have a bearing on the building of the workers’ movement and the creation of a socialist movement and socialist internationalism in the Middle East and Africa.
But that is by the by? You Say “How do you square calls for workers unity and socialism with the fact that Israeli workers have such a material interest in supporting the Zionist state? I think the problem with this is that whenever violent conflicts erupt, the CWI can end up taking a ‘plague on both your houses’ position, as if both sides are equally responsible. The logic of that is to prevent socialists in the West from expressing solidarity with those who find themselves fighting against the Zionist state.”
To start with the Israel working class has no material interest in the capitalist society of Israel. And any socialist who says that is actually pushing the Israeli working class into the Israeli reactionary capitalist class. A general strike took place in Israel on Monday 7 November 2011, with workers in the civil service, public transport, universities, airports, sea ports and local authorities among those striking. The strike was called by the Histadrut trade union federation, to demand a reduction in the number of public sector workers that are employed by agencies rather than directly by the state and an increase in their wages and benefits. For two years before that there had been fierce industrial battle by Israeli workers and Palestinian workers living in Israel against the Israeli state. Because of the world economic crisis which is hitting the Israeli economy the Israeli working class are in ferment and are ripe to grasp Left, radical and Socialist ideas. The absolute criteria for any socialist is to support the Israeli working class against the Israeli, and international, capitalist class and advance socialist policies to win them to a change in society.
The CWI does not say a plague on both their house and that is an ignorant reading of our position based on the false premise of the SWP teachings. Yes the CWI does not condone the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel. They sometimes cause injuries and occasionally deaths of innocent people – they killed three Israeli civilians last week – and they do nothing to advance the Palestinians’ cause. A few have nearly reached the built-up areas of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. But for those rockets to be used to justify large-scale slaughter of Gazans using the latest high-tech weaponry, is an attempt to hide the real agenda of the Israeli leaders and their friends in the ruling classes internationally. Sending rockets into Israel is not self-defence and does not do anything to win the Israeli worker to the side of the Palestinian worker and their families; which is what they should be doing as a means to split Israeli society. Yes use weapons against the Israeli army who attack the Palestinian homes and to defend themselves, but that is entirely different to sending rockets into Israel.
The CWI and our Israeli party, Socialist Struggle Movement, have continually condemned the Israeli government for the blockade against Gaza and the military incursions over the years. On the 15 November they said that “opposition to the war plans of Netanyahu, Barak and Lieberman could and should be organized, also inside Israel and in the Palestinian Territories, in order to prevent a sharper escalation in the military conflict. Initial protest steps have begun to be organized and they should be widened.” As well as calling for protest demonstrations, Socialist Struggle Movement is calling for the Israeli workers’ organisations, including the Histadrut trade union federation and the social movements, to publicly denounce the offensive and to initiate and take part in protests against it.
Socialist Struggle Movement also advanced the need to Stop the slaughter! End the missile strikes and other attacks on Gaza! No to this war of the Israeli government of big business and settlements! End the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Open the Gaza-Egypt border! For the immediate withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Palestinian territories! For a mass struggle of the Palestinians, under their own democratic control, to fight for genuine national liberation! For working class support, throughout the Middle East and internationally, for the Palestinians’ struggle. For independent workers’ organisations in Palestine and Israel! For a struggle for governments of representatives of workers and the poor that will end oppression, defend democratic rights and break with capitalism and imperialism. For democratic socialism in Palestine, Israel and throughout the Middle East, with guaranteed democratic rights for all national minorities!
That programme Stuart means the CWI do not support the Israeli capitalist state or the capitalist system per se and that is how socialists give support to the Palestinian people to fight the Israeli capitalists on the one hand and the right-wing pro-capitalist Islamists on the other. Any other way will just play into the hands of reactionary Arab leaders and the Israeli and international capitalists. Workers Unity is paramount and the building of new mass workers’ parties in the region is the start along with the advancement of a two socialist state.
Jimmy HaddowQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Sorry guys, I’m not gonna allow Jimmy’s sectarian method to divert this thread into a discussion how wrong X is and how right Y is and how you just don’t have a clear perspective on the issue.
You can engage in discussion of the excellent points Kevin makes instead. I know it’s less fun, but them’s the rules.
[edit: I made the text bold, cos I don't think people saw it. I would've deleted Karl's post earlier but I didn't spot it and then it's too late once hours have past, but I've drawn a line, allowed Jimmy to finally post something political, and now we move on - I've deleted a couple of comments cos all they do is divert it, when there's a big issue to discuss]
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Omar on said:
Sorry to flog a dead horse but, once again, did anyone see any coverage on any mainstream news about the Gaza solidarity march in London on Saturday that ,according to StWC, attracted 15,000 marchers!? I don’t have telly so I’m just trying to establish if the event was ignored by the main news bodies or not.
OmarQuote text Reply
prianikoff on said:
Returning to the issue of Kevin’s article.
Generally it’s good, although I’d take issue with the term “War”. It wasn’t a war, just an episode in one.
There is no “outcome” as such.
Maybe a shift in the balance of forces?
If Hamas re-arms with Fajr5′s from Iran, it will certainly kick off again with renewed ferocity.
Point (3) is the most decisive one.
It’s what happens in Egypt that matters right now.
A very tricky tightrope walk for any socialists there.
But I think they could have a decisive role in what happens, if they play their cards right.
prianikoffQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Omar – I didn’t see a damned thing. Have you dug around on google news? I know that can present a warped picture, cos it’s easy for a media outlet to put an online story up without running it in the print edition.
I’ve noticed people saying that there definitely wasn’t a report on the BBC news about it.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Omar on said:
tony collins,
Thanks Tony. I’ve only seen reports online from activist websites,really. I find it astonishing that a demo of this size, about a very topical and current issue, would be ignored in such a manner.This is worth highlighting and complaining about by licence-fee payers I would think?
OmarQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
I worry that the BBC has won. I never complain anymore. I was so sick of the type of reply I was getting – I have never even been able to get them to acknowledge that I might even have a point, let alone got them to agree with it.
What I’d quite like is for people to send in some good examples of double-standards over Palestine, so we can keep pushing the issue. The latest one was the BBC online headline “Terror in Tel Aviv”, which came after pretty much a whole family had been massacred by Israel and the BBC only felt it was worth the headline being “A difficult night in Gaza”.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
stuart on said:
At post 21 John makes the comparison with apartheid South Africa. I think that we need to consider an important difference. In South Africa black workers were able to use labour unrest in such a way as to bring instability and thereby ensure that business interests put pressure on white rulers to make moves towards black majority rule- the dismantling of the apartheid state.
It is the case in the Middle East however that US business interests regard US dominance over the region as vitally important even if the US relies less on Middle East oil. And in this respect Israel is the ideal, reliable ally, ready to discipline anyone who steps out of line. Therefore, the US will continue to pay massive subsidies and thereby ensure that settlers retain their privileged economic position and further, that settlers will not rebel against Zionism- they make strike over conditions but not against Zionism.
So given that, how do we pull the Israeli people away from Zionism? Surely this can only be done if they can start to feel more vulnerable, that the IDF is not invincible, that military defeat can occur. But Arab governments have shown to be incapable of defeating Israel, far too willing to compromise with imperialism, therefore the revolutionary upsurges across the region are to be seen as vitally important- and in this regard a defeat for Morsi at the Egyptian presidential run-off would have stalled the revolution when the main task is for it continue well beyond its current state.
And in addition to willing on the success of Arab revolutions, our task as socialists in the West should surely be to support the defeat of Israel whenever the IDF goes into battle. So therefore it was very disappointing to see how Jimmy Haddow’s CWI related to the Lebanon war in 2006…
‘”Hezbollah are trying to demonstrate to the Lebanese that they have the courage and strength to hurt Israel and thereby to make political gains. Therefore, this current conflict is about who will gain the most in terms of prestige and political kudos. The people who will lose out in all this will be the working class on both sides.” At the root of these national conflicts is a power struggle between the different ruling classes in the region backed by different imperialist powers.’http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Nationalist_and_National_Liberation/Hezbollah/5353/20-07-2006/stop-the-carnage
I’m afraid this amounts a ‘plague on both your houses’ at a time when solidarity was so vitally needed.
stuartQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Stuart don’t you start. Your entire post ended up being about you having a go at the Socialist Party for something they said 6 years ago. You could’ve made your point without going on to do your “so it was disappointing to read that…” sneer.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
#44 I feel you are deliberately misleading the readership of SU Vanya. The “bloke” with the big knob is not in fact a “bloke”. It is a satyr. They are notorious for printing off post cards of themselves and sending them to humans randomly. The most likely explanation for this behaviour is an endless competition between themselves. They rely on the reaction of humans to determine who has the most correct member.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
stuart on said:
Tony,
I can understand your concern as administrator, however I would say that although Jimmy raises points in a sectarian manner, the points are themselves important. So earlier in the thread we see Vanya and Karl Stewart entering into discussion over a political solution. I would argue that we cannot talk seriously about political solutions (as socialists) without talking about how socialists should relate to the Arab uprisings, specifically over the question of the MB and Egypt, and further how socialists relate to military conflict whenever it breaks out. The fact that Jimmy launched an attack on the SWP in an ‘out of context’ kind of way does not mean that the points themselves are irrelevant IMO.
stuartQuote text Reply
John on said:
I think it’s also important to understand that all we are doing on here is talking, and that what we say has little if any bearing on what’s taking place on the ground in either Egypt or Gaza, and that sometimes we’d be better served by doing more listening than talking.
The abiding arrogance of the left in this country, which I have to remind you (and myself, for that matter) carries about as much political weight as a fly’s wing here at home, never mind internationally, is a constant source of interest to me.
JohnQuote text Reply
jim mclean on said:
Exalt
jim mcleanQuote text Reply
stuart on said:
John,
But you yourself refer in post 21 to the
‘ the significant shift in public opinion in the West when it comes to the issue that has taken place since Cast Lead.’
If you are right, and I believe you are, then the audience for the left is expanding when it comes to Israel and the Middle East- sympathy for Israel has been diminishing for many years now.
stuartQuote text Reply
John on said:
Sure, but we (the left) can’t take sole credit for that. Undoubtedly there are two interlinked processes taking place, wherein the resistance of the Palestinians and Israel’s periodic outbursts of overwhelming military force and mass murder which results, help us to make the case of the Palestinian people and support for BDS. This increased sympathy in the West is steadily making it more difficult for mainstream politicians to defend Israel in the usual way.
For example, there was a land invasion as part of a two week assault on Gaza in 2008/09. This time round there was no land invasion, despite the fact there’s an extreme right wing coalition in power in Israel.
But there’s a difference between solidarity and paternalism, and I wonder if some of us tend to confuse the two at times. Of course we can have opinions on what’s taking place within Palestinian and Egyptian politics. We have to, given the centrality of the region to every other issue. But when I read the kind of prescriptive material being posted by Jimmy, for example, I cannot help but feel a line has been crossed.
JohnQuote text Reply
stuart on said:
Without wishing to labour this too far, I think the SWP are often placed in a ‘no-win’ situation on this site. On the one hand we are told that the SWP are so irrelevant as to make whatever attempt at analysis a complete waste of time. And then on the other hand we have posters such as Mark Victorystooge at post 24 on this thread doing what many others seem to do, and that is accusing the SWP of ‘selling-out’ to Western imperialism- we even had an opening thread recently in which the author basically accused the SWP of failing to understand the true meaning of Balfour, citing selectively passages from SWP writers that didn’t explain what Balfour really meant.
If the SWP are ‘wrong’ on imperialism it seems they are important or influential, otherwise they are so irrelevant it matters not a jot what they think.
stuartQuote text Reply
Mark Victorystooge on said:
It’s debatable whether the SWP has ever been an anti-imperialist organisation, so I am not sure it could be accused of “selling out” a policy it has never had. But the strange harmonies between the British state and a large part of the British left have certainly become more obvious in recent years, esp. in reactions to events abroad, which is where you would expect anti-imperialism or its absence to be most evident.
There are several possible reasons for this.
1) Anti-imperialist reactions among the left have tended to be weakest in the imperialist countries themselves. The British left for example mostly takes Britain’s membership in NATO for granted, whereas anti-NATO agitation is frequent among the left in countries like Greece or Turkey, where in the latter country there is a real risk of being drawn into imperialist war for NATO in relation to both Syria and Iran.
2) The 21st century left is rather disorientated generally, and that makes it easier for it to get pulled into supporting imperialist campaigns for “democracy”, “human rights” etc. It also leads to it backing dubious forces, like the Muslim Brotherhood. Relevant to points 1 and 2 are that the left is influenced by the bourgeois society surrounding it, through the mainstream media and so on.
3) Which brings me to an even cruder form of bourgeois influence over the left. State agents in left groups, if they are influential enough, could well be pushing their organisations towards acting as extensions of their own government’s foreign policies, concealed of course by left-sounding rhetoric. So armed groups in the Middle East not known for turning down the Yankee dollar, the pound sterling, the Euro, the Saudi rial or guidance from NATO/Gulf armed forces and intelligence services are praised as “revolutionaries” by much of the left.
Point 3 is more speculative than points 1 and 2, but we live in tense times of austerity, war and threats of war. I don’t think the state ignores the left and opportunities to influence it and even use it.
Mark VictorystoogeQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Stuart – when I talked about the SWP being irrelevant, I thought I made it clear that I was talking about the context: Kevin Ovenden’s articles about Gaza. Jimmy Haddow was criticising you for something that was irrelevant. The only way the SWP is relevant in this issue is that I hope that every single day, you people regret the disgusting way you treated Kevin Ovenden, and that you think about the sort of analytical mind you lost cos of your recklessness.
Other than that, Jimmy’s attack on the SWP was silly and pointless. There are plenty of times when left wing groups can and should be criticised, but Jimmy chose that as his only contribution to the thread. That’s the relevance of me saying the SWP was irrelevant.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
Inconsistent as they may have been over the years, and much as they piss me off constantly, bear in mind that the SWP and their forerunners: (a) Supported the campaign against the US involvement in Vietnam, (b) Participated in the Troops Out Movement, including marching on every Bloody Sunday protest (including one in York just after it happened when at least one IS member was arrested) and braving hostile crowds in the process as well as supporting the Maze hunger strikes, (c) have always opposed zionism, (d) called for the victory of Argentina and the withdrawal of the British fleet from the South Atlantic, (e) opposed both wars against Iraq, helping to form a mass campaign in respect of the last one, (f) opposed the attack on Serbia over Kosovo and (g) opposed the US led invasion of Afghanistan.
Moreover, while I think it was wrong, their support for ant-soviet forces in the earlier Afghan war was based on a similar premise to that of Mao’s 3 worlds theory only less anti-soviet.
So to simply to say they have never been anti-imperialist is far too bald a statement I would have thought.
VanyaQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#64 And they were in the campaign within CND to include the demand for British withdrawal from NATO.
VanyaQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#55 Congratulations for spotting my deliberate mistake John.
I’m glad someone was paying attention.
VanyaQuote text Reply
John on said:
This is untrue and unfounded, I think. Vanya has helpfully enumerated their record of taking anti imperialist positions over the years, and certainly they have a solid line on Palestine today. They were also excellent on Iraq and the rise of Islamophobia at home as a consequence, particularly after 7/7. They’ve also been good on Afghanistan this time round, though utterly deplorable during the Soviet intervention.
But there is no doubt they’ve lost their way when it comes to the Arab Spring and its impact throughout the region. Their position on Libya was horrible, as is their current analysis of Syria.
I think their analysis and politics has suffered with the departure of John Rees and Lyndsey German.
JohnQuote text Reply
Jellytot on said:
@61If the SWP are ‘wrong’ on imperialism it seems they are important or influential, otherwise they are so irrelevant it matters not a jot what they think.
I’m increasingly coming around to the latter conclusion, especially in the realm of “foreign” affairs. Their input, however, into such things as anti-fascist campaigns in the UK still merit comment/criticism.
@64Moreover, while I think it was wrong, their support for ant-soviet forces in the earlier Afghan war was based on a similar premise to that of Mao’s 3 worlds theory only less anti-soviet.
The ‘Three Worlds Theory’ was terrible in practice though.
@67They’ve also been good on Afghanistan this time round, though utterly deplorable during the Soviet intervention.
There were not-a-few rank and file members who were opposed to this line back in the 80′s (me included).
JellytotQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#68 Yes the 3 worlds theory was terrible but it was propounded by people who’s anti-imperialist credentials were hardly in doubt.
VanyaQuote text Reply
stuart on said:
1)The SWP has always sought to update its analysis as the global situation develops, building on Lenin and Trotsky’s insights but taking on board the post-WW2 reality, and then the post-1989 situation along with the rise of ‘Islamism’. The analysis has always attempted to remain faithful to a Marxist understanding.
In this regard try Cliff on ‘state capitalism’, Cliff and Harman on Eastern Europe, Harris on China under Mao, Kidron and Harman on ‘permanent arms economy’, Cliff on ‘deflected permanent revolution’, Callinicos and Harman on ‘imperialism’, Harman on ‘Islamism’.
2)The SWP has always been ‘anti-imperialist’
3) The SWP has never ‘backed’ the Muslim Brotherhood, rather it has sought to understand its position from a dialectical point of view.
stuartQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
_______________________________________
^ that is a line being drawn under discussions of the relative merits or otherwise of the British left. Don’t make me close the comments thread.
If you want to discuss the issues surrounding the SWP or SP, I’m sure that, as activist organisations, both parties have online debating spaces where you can go to thrash these things out.
If Stuart or Jimmy want to post links to the SWP & SP’s forum/discussion sites, I’ll happily direct people there.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#70 ‘The SWP has always been ‘anti-imperialist’.
Well that settles it then.
VanyaQuote text Reply
Vanya on said:
#71 sorry Tony I posted before I saw your line.
VanyaQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
I think it’s worth highlighting the fact that JimmyH spouts off a load of abstract, dogmatic r-r-revolutionary rhetoric, but when it actually comes down to it, he’s essentially a liberal pacifist.
This is from his long-winded rant at post (46):
“…the CWI does not condone the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel. They sometimes cause injuries and occasionally deaths of innocent people – they killed three Israeli civilians last week – and they do nothing to advance the Palestinians’ cause. A few have nearly reached the built-up areas of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Sending rockets into Israel is not self-defence and does not do anything to win the Israeli worker to the side of the Palestinian worker and their families; which is what they should be doing…”
I find it astonishing that someone from the UK who pretends to be a revolutionary socialist would take it upon himself to reprimand Gazans for fighting back by any means necessary, and then going on to lecture them as to what type of tactics they “should” be using.
As well as being craven and unprincipled, his argument is also utter nonsense. The actual reason Israel didn’t launch a ground invasion was because of the proven military capacity of the Gazans to fight back and the possibility that couldn’t be completely ruled out that an Israeli ground invasion could provoke an Egyptian intervention.
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
I do think it’s incredible that supposedly sophisticated left wingers can buy into the liberal line about rocket fire.
What it does mean is that those left-wing groups will never be able to be involved with the new Palestine solidarity movement that is being born in the UK. Sadly, there is no left wing group that is in a position to fully engage with the massive number of young Muslims who understand clearly what’s going on in Gaza, and don’t need to apologise for what puny resistance is put up by Gazans.
Even the PSC, as much as I admire it, wants nothing more than armchair activism and the occasional march. None of the groups on the left has the imagination to really connect with the massive anger out there.
Jimmy’s post was just liberal hand-wringing. It says a lot about the abstract nature of their thinking that a) they don’t even note that the rockets are being fired into what was a Palestinian village, called Najd, from which the Palestinians were forcibly expelled by Zionist colonisers, b) they don’t have the slightest clue of the class forces in the region, let alone in Gaza – FFS, right now it’s actually essential to defend the rulers of Gaza, who are being murdered, imprisoned and tortured by the Zionists, and c) they can’t show absolute solidarity.
The left is truly depressing.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Pete Shield on said:
stuart,
An few interesting points there comrade.
I was in an around Southern Africa in the era of the slow fall of the apartheid regime. One of the key moments I always thought, and others have said the same thing, was the war in Angola. The key moment was the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 87/88 when Angolan troops, supported both by Cuban soldiers and Cuban pilots brought the SADF forces to a halt and started to inflict serious damage both on the ground and in the air.
The South African Defence Force, like the IDF, was seen as the pride of the ‘nation’, and the South African Airforce believed to be both better equipped and better trained. The well reported arrival of body bags back from the Angolan border had a major impact on the sense of infallibility of the minority regime.
You could make the point the Israeli’s Cuito Cuanavale moment was in the ground war in Lebanon in 2006, and though it was a major blow, and certainly the military have been reluctant to repeat such a large scale land invasion it has not has the same paralyzing effect that it did in South Africa
In Southern Africa the military setback was also combined with long term major industrial unrest, civil unrest as well as economic, academic and artistic boycotts that bit right to the heart of the minority population’s daily life, and the fact that the the majority population was in many ways integrated into the daily lives of the minority despite the apartheid rules and townships. I’ve met Israeli’s who literally don’t know any Palestinian’s, the same could not be said in South Africa. So when the ANC talked about a rainbow nation it was something that already half existed, and could optimistically be imaged.
The same could not be said about Israel today. Israel is already a nation that lies under a cloud of fear, its disproportionate military response, it’s zig zagging regional policy, are far from signs of a strong nation, rather a weak scared one. Yes it still has a big stick but it is proving to have no idea what it actually protecting with its stick, the government is confused and unwieldy. It has no vision of its future. So it is creating futures to sell to its allies, a Syrian / Iraqi / nuclear Iranian axis reaching deep across the Saharan and Maghreb facing off to a MB Egypt/Turkey and threatening Saudi and the Gulf states which keep Israel in the centre of international strategic policy. How long it can keep this up remains to be seen.
The changing, and from an environmental point of view, disastrous change of US energy policy, as it shifts to deep sea drilling, tar sands and shale fracking is also another source of Israeli fear, with India and China potentially accounting for 80% of regional energy exports. If the US is no longer dependent on Middle East energy what will its long term interest be in the region, will it want to keep a firm foot on China and India’s energy arteries?
It seems to me that the long term effect of the Arab Spring is only just beginning to take form and the whole region is in a state of flux, the solutions, what ever they are are not to be found marching backwards into the future.
Pete ShieldQuote text Reply
Jellytot on said:
@76The changing, and from an environmental point of view, disastrous change of US energy policy, as it shifts to deep sea drilling, tar sands and shale fracking is also another source of Israeli fear, with India and China potentially accounting for 80% of regional energy exports. If the US is no longer dependent on Middle East energy what will its long term interest be in the region, will it want to keep a firm foot on China and India’s energy arteries?
Interesting post at #76 but I think it’s too tempting to get transfixed on the Oil thing and see it as the overarching driver behind policy. Just because the US has the ability to become energy self suffcient doesn’t mean it will choose to become so and some of the extraction and refining methods you quote above are very expensive. Also the final results aren’t as good as the high quality Middle Eastern product.
Even without Oil as a motivator I could still see the US remaining umbilically linked to Israel (I mean, why does the US maintain large and very expensive bases in Japan and South Korea?). While I am always suspicious of ascribing too much power and influence to groups like AIPIC (too many dodgy conspiracy theories around for my liking), it would be wrong to state that they are without any political pull on Capitol Hill.
What is possible though is that Israel may be more vulnerable to persuation and disciplining in the future and that has to be a good thing.
JellytotQuote text Reply
jim mclean on said:
It may be of interest that the US are expanding their presence in the Far East. The “secret” reopening of old bases is now publicly accepted. Subic Bay being an example. More meat for those of us concerned about the US and its aim to “contain” china.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-militarization-of-the-far-east-us-threatens-china-s-major-cities-america-s-strategic-naval-base-in-korea/29921
jim mcleanQuote text Reply
Noah on said:
A very good question. I suspect that the answer would be yes.
Controlling the supply of a resource is important in terms of having the potential to deny it to ones rivals, and also to keep ones allies on board by guaranteeing their supplies.
And of course another factor is the interests of US-based oil companies.
NoahQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
Talking of irrelevant, ridiculous sectarian behaviour, the SWP is calling for a vote for Labour in Croydon, where Lee Jasper is standing for Respect, because of Galloway’s rape comments.
Absolutely unbelievable – these people just have not got a clue. They think that the way to hold a socialist MP to account for his idiotic comments is to vote for a party that gives full support to Israel, helped to kill a million Iraqis, privatised everything in sight and ramped up attacks on civil liberties and Muslims in the UK.
Could one of the SWP members reading this please explain how on earth this helps anyone? I mean, sure, all you’re doing is confirming that you’ve not learned a single thing from the Respect split, and that you genuinely have no interest in actually building any kind of united fightback… but that’s just your leadership. The rest of you don’t have to go along with this idiocy.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Kevin Ovenden on said:
Noah and Pete – the answer is definitely yes: the US wants to keep control of the supply of oil to oil-poor China above all. I have various articles and the odd book on it, but can’t reference at the moment. But it is pretty candid in Washington official doctrine.
Kevin OvendenQuote text Reply
Charlie Brown on said:
Beggars belief! It brings to mind a conversation I had with a party member a year or so ago; She asked me to join the party. I said I’d previously joined and I had left because of the Respect split (as a Muslim, I couldn’t stay after what had been said about ‘extremist Muslims’) – and her only response was “But John and Lindsey have left”. As though that was all it took, as though the slate had been wiped clean. Thank you Socialist Worker, for reminding me, yet again, why I haven’t rejoined the party.
Charlie BrownQuote text Reply
Jellytot on said:
@80Talking of irrelevant, ridiculous sectarian behaviour, the SWP is calling for a vote for Labour in Croydon, where Lee Jasper is standing for Respect, because of Galloway’s rape comments.
Well, it’s certainly irrelevant. It may shave a few tenths of one percentage point off of Jasper’s vote.
JellytotQuote text Reply
Noah on said:
Hi Kevin. That’s very interesting- and even more worrying. When you can find them, any links, book titles etc to source materials would be most appreciated.
NoahQuote text Reply
Kevin Ovenden on said:
Might have a chance in next couple of days, Noah. Happy to oblige. Contact Tony at admin, get my address and email me.
Kevin OvendenQuote text Reply
Kevin Ovenden on said:
Oh – and thanks, Noah, for the very encouraging comments about the articles.
Kevin OvendenQuote text Reply
jack on said:
So, despite ‘drawing a line’ against a petty, point-scoring from long entrenched positions, that’s exactly what has ensued. It’s a condition that’s just beyond help or repair. I remember going along to the first meetings of the Socialist Alliance and having this weird but joyful feeling that somehow sanity had emerged on the left. I was naive, of course. These organisations are literally incapable of humility and openness. The smaller you are (and even the bigger ones are small) the more self-important, arrogant, nasty, and just plain odd you are likely to be.
Why is the SWP calling for a Labour vote in Croydon? I guess because they hate Galloway’s fucking guts, since they uncritically built him up and then he hurt their pride by suggesting their leadership was lacking. His ill-judged comments on rape were a godsend to them, because they could climb on a moral high horse and pretend that that was the reason they hated him. Yes, it’s grubby, petty and sectarian. That would be the left for you (and not just the SWP), I’m afraid.
jackQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
I’ve just posted this in response to a discussion on Facebook. A few people from the SWP or allied groups have supported the decision, and seem to be arguing that George’s comments really do justify the whole decision.
“I was really annoyed with what George said about rape. But I never had to hesitate for one second about which side to be on in this election. I wouldn’t hesitate to vote Respect. I wouldn’t hesitate to endorse Lee Jasper enthusiastically. I would never, ever think of recommending a vote for Labour just because of what Galloway said. What are those guys thinking? The problem is, this won’t confuse any voters. It will harm the SWP’s credibility though. This is AWL territory…
“I think the political degeneration here is incredible. Basically, what the SWP seems to be saying (if I’ve understood these contributions correctly) is that on the list of pluses and minuses that makes people declare support for a party, *all* of Galloway’s achievements in the movement, all of the leadership he has provided, all of the way he has put himself on the line for what he believes in, *ALL* of that is erased by his comments on rape. No matter what good he has done, every single bit of it was undone by his comments on rape. Not only has it undone everything he has ever done, it has also undone everything his party has done – to the point where a completely different person is now not worthy of a vote. Have I got that right?
“And at the same time, every single bad thing the Labour Party has done – a million people killed in Iraq, the middle east destabilised, several wars launched and mass slaiughters globally; rendition and torture; detention without trial; privatisation beyond anything the Tories were able to do; a deliberate massive rise in racism and attacks on the Muslim community, along with big attacks on freedom and liberties – *ALL* of that is forgiven, to the point where the SWP can actually *recommend* a vote for Labour. Have I got that right? What the person above calls “rape apologism” is enough to make every single thing Galloway and Jasper have ever achieved count for nothing, and it’s enough to make a *positive recommendation to vote Labour*? I can’t see that my logic is wrong there – this seems to be what you are arguing.”
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Omar on said:
tony collins,
You can bet that if RESPECT does win either seat it’s contesting, there will be talk of “reconsidering our relationship” or somesuch by the SWP, just like after Bradford..LOL!
OmarQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
I haven’t heard anything about who the SWP is supporting in Croydon, but if they don’t want to support Respect, why not support the Communist Party candidate Ben Stevenson?
As for Galloway, the comments he made about the CIA smear campaign against Assange were absolutely spot on. Galloway was completely and totally right on that.
Galloway was unflinching and uncompromising in his solidarity with Assange in the face of enormous pressure from the establishment and the cowardly betrayals of those on the left – including some from his own party – who capitulated to the CIA smear campaign.
I’ve never been a Respect Party member or supporter, but if anything, Galloway’s principled stand on this issue will increase his party’s support at the polls.
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
andy newman on said:
tony collins,
Does it matter what the SWP says about Croydon? Do they have any influence there?
andy newmanQuote text Reply
John on said:
I’m not sure it will increase his party’s support at the polls, but I agree with the rest of your comment.
JohnQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
Good point Andy, it’s highly unlikely that Croydon’s disenchanted Labour voters switching over to Respect will first think: “Hmmm…I like what that Lee Jasper’s saying about fighting cuts, protecting jobs, defending social housing and tenants’ rights, confronting racism and bigotry, standing up for education and health, welfare and public leisure services – that’s all very well.
“But what’s really important is the opinion of a tiny and irrelevant leftist sect on the burning issue of what someone else said about a lady who chose to shag an Australian in Sweden three years ago…that’s the decider for me.”
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
tony collins on said:
It’s not really about Croydon itself, is it – it’s more about them losing the plot. They did so much damage to the movement last time they veered into hard ultra-leftism. They won’t have any influence in Croydon, but a whole load of their activists will be being educated in a damaging method of working.
tony collinsQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
I can sympathise with your frustration and anger Tony.
SWP policies have become quite disgusting lately in some respects.
They openly celebrated the NATO-organised and publicly televised fatal lynching of an African last year and now they’re spreading the CIA’s lies about Galloway.
Some pretty disgusting stuff I agree – but let’s not forget there are some genuinely decent socialists in the SWP and at some point, perhaps they’ll find the courage to stand up against the pro-CIA elements.
Karl StewartQuote text Reply
John on said:
Karl, I think your points lose veracity when you adopt hyperbolic statements such as this. I don’t think there are conscious pro-CIA elements in the SWP.
I agree they’ve degenerated politically, but this has more to do in my opinion with the weaknesses inherent in Trotskyism, which often does lapse into liberalism, than anything else.
JohnQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on said:
I just get incredibly angry when I tthink of Bradley Manning being tortured in a US jail and facing a 50-year sentence for the “crime” of telling the truth and it’s blindingly obvious that they will do exactly the same to Assange when they get their hands on him.
And whether conciously or not, the various lilly-livered faint hearts on the UK left who’ve capitulated to this particular “get Galloway” smear are objectively aiding the CIA in their aims here.
Karl StewartQuote text Reply