The preconditions for a settlement in Palestine
Posted on Monday 5 January, 2009
Filed Under International
PERHAPS the most dispiriting aspect of the invasion of the Gaza Strip is the utter pointlessness of the exercise; while military victory is all but certain, at every other level, Israel can only be the loser.
Decades of refusal to allow Palestinians their legitimate political rights has not left it even marginally more secure, and its current savage actions will only serve further to galvanise support for Hamas.
The brutalities that the Israel Defense Forces are perpetrating right now guarantee the rocket launchers and the suicide bombers more recruits then they will know what to do with, for a generation and more to come.
Meanwhile, the 100:1 ratio of the death tolls has horrified liberal opinion everywhere. Even the European Commission is now openly accusing Israel of breaching humanitarian law.
What, then, can possibly be the motivation of Israel’s political establishment for a course of action both murderous in the literal sense and spectacularly misconceived at the strategic level?
One issue is of course the need to restore IDF credibility in the wake of the Lebanon debacle. Then there is the desire of Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak to out-Netanyahu Netanyahu himself in the run up to general elections next month. Why should they concern themselves with the growing pile of corpses – and they are 99% Palestinian corpses, after all – when such vital issues of credibility are at stake?
Let it be stressed at once that the open admiration for the reactionary Islamists of Hamas – so obviously on display in some quarters of the left – is profoundly misplaced.
Nevertheless, the organisation won the Palestinian elections in 2006 because it articulated opposition to Israeli oppression, and because of popular revulsion at the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. That gives it an undeniable popular mandate and makes it central to the quest for a solution, whether we like that reality or not.
Opinions as to what constitutes a viable settlement to the Palestine question differ, and at times like this, all of them seem somewhat chimeric. But a precondition of ever reaching one is an Israeli leadership that is both aware of the extent of the injustices meted out since 1948 and determined to rectify them. That is clearly not the Israeli leadership we see right now.
<<Go back
Comments
74 Responses to “The preconditions for a settlement in Palestine”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
“Your view, that it justifies the bombing of schools/hospitals/police stations/mosques/ambulances, is bonkers.”
NO, it does NOT.
I never said it did.
but the unhealthy desire to whitewash Hamas’s racism is disturbing and very wrong.
I am against the Israeli attack in Gaza.
to be clear and I hope your reading skills improve, as I’ve blogged on it a few times, I am against the Israeli attack in Gaza.
I am against it, but that does not change the fact about the deep seated racism within the Hamas leadership.
just so you get it, I am against the Israeli attack in Gaza.
“it was written in 1988″
Yes, sorry, it is 21 years old rather than 24 years old. Its particular relevance to understanding Hamas today is not particularly altered by that fact, however. Perhaps you are still waiting for the Labour Party to implement its 1983 manifesto, which it has never expressly repudiated, or expecting the Italian Communist Party to come to power through a historic compromise.
“If it is so unimportant, why is it not changed?”
Partly because nobody has heard of it and it is not used as any kind of guide to political action today, partly because Hamas are averse to the process of jumping through a never ending series of hoops that are held up for them by the Israelis, having witnessed the unhappy experience of Fatah in that respect. Political movements tend to move away from their roots rather than expressly disown them – after all, Likud has never disowned the “both banks of the Jordan are ours” slogan and the Labour Party has never apologised for organising boycotts of Arab goods and labour.
What I thought might be of interest to you is the fact that last year, on the testimony of a settler rabbi, who might be thought a pretty reliable witness in this context, the Hamas leadership in Gaza accepted a document accepting the Jewish presence in Palestine and promising to “bring an end to the problems between the noble Palestinian people and the distinguished Jewish people in the Holy Land.” But evidently you prefer living in that 80s show.
I am against it, but that does not change the fact about the deep seated racism within the Hamas leadership.
The USA unquestionably was a deeply racist society in the 1940s – they segregated black and white soldiers in the army and refused to employ blacks in many positions.
Presumably, because of this racism, no one on the left should have assisted the US in fighting the Nazis or the Japanese.
I have no doubt that the politics of many Islamist groups is of concern. Best to keep your eyes open when dealing with Hamas, Hizbollah etc. No doubt they have UK supporters.
These groups are not on the offensive, despite the language. Whatever the damage they do, it is not rolling over borders and destroying land and livelihood. They are supported for many reasons, largely defensive.
Who is doing what to whom here? What is the fundamental injustice? Why get scared of your support for Palestinian rights on the grounds that many ‘Islamists’ agree with you?
What an upside-down world.
Yeah I was kind of thinking the same.
In 1940, for example, Britain’s prime minister was a racist, union-bashing reactionary scumbag who no one on the left could have seen as an ally. However, we were under threat of occupation from a racist foreign power, so I’m kind of glad that unity came to the forefront and that foreign power was fought and repelled.
Presumably, however, the “decent left” position at that point would have been that it was much more important to sit around stroking their chins and making sure people denounced Churchill rather than making sure the county wasn’t defeated and occupied. “Decent Left”ism sometimes seems to have a pretty ultra-left absence of practical thinking.
Stopping people in Gaza being bombed and starved ought to be the overwhelming practical concern of this thread, but we’ve not heard much of that.
Yours, a secular fundamentalist-hating anti-colonialist socialist and trade unionist.
Actually, I think the “decent left” position was to reject the revolutionary defeatism that allows the most ultra left commentator here to say he’d happily support fascists.
The far left of both Trot and Tank variety was busily denouncing imperialist war while the Labour Party was demanding the Tories get their act together to defend the country.
Make no mistake – i want a ceasefire. I also want the scum of hamas out of power. No cpmpromise with fascism or racism.
Well unfortunately the Decent Left is not noted for its military acumen, whether in terms of strategic insight or courage, so I doubt if they would have been put in charge of the defence of the country, or even the Warmington on Sea home guard. I suspect if there had been Decents in 1940 they would have wangled themselves jobs working for the Inland Revenue, far from the field of action, and devoted themselves largely to penning denunciations of the Grand Mufti (the latter is an especially safe bet, since that’s what they largely devote themselves to now).
“No cpmpromise with fascism or racism”. Unless, of course, the fascists or racists happen to be Israeli, in which case you have complete agreement. http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3651735,00.html
“Decent Left-ism sometimes seems to have a pretty ultra-left absence of practical thinking.”
This is exactly the contradiction which can, if investigated, can tell us something about this “Decent Left”. For who can avoid noticing that many of the voices who hold an ultra-left position in relation to working alongside Hamas (i.e. adopting an idealistic and uncompromising stance) are the very same voices which attack the ultra-left in the West for adopting an allegedly over-idealistic and uncompromising stance.
I think the proper method of analysis here is to find some sort of hidden consistency – however bizarre it may be – in this contradiction which haunts the Decent Left. And, as far as I can tell, it seems to relate to how directly (or indirectly) the interests of the oppressed are represented. In other words, if we play the bourgeois-democratic game at home in order to win for the working class and if we resolve the Israel/Palestine problem through international diplomacy (involving the US and EU), then we will have succeeded without the oppressed (the working class, the Palestinians) actually presenting themselves too directly in the confrontation. In essence, no matter what the arena (class struggle, the Middle East) the Decent Left want a resolution without a confrontation. And that is why it is they, and not the ultra-left, who are truly over-ambitious.
Tonight it is certain pensioners will die of hypothermia because they can’t afford to ‘heat and eat’, Purnell’s welfare reforms are powering ahead, the privatisation of the NHS continues apace, unemployment will reach 3 million by the end of the year.
So where are the campaigns, the anger, etc? the Left can certainly mobilise when it wants to, just look at the demos’ resources, etc it can find for the Palestine Crisis , etc. Good on them, but many on the Far Left/Civil Society sees this mobilisation as a strength, it may be, but it also shows a vacuum on the left/civil society, etc: when such issues as the above are just ignored and put to one side. During the Spaish Civil War, (which saw millions die) for example, the Left raised thousands through ‘Milk for Spain’, while still fighting unemployment though the National Unemployed Workers Movement(NUWM) ,
So why no urgency on the domestic issues? I suspect someone else will soon fill that vacuum and it won’t be pretty.
Are you just spamming messageboards with your vague whinging frenetic?
“The left” doesn’t owe you, or anyone else, anything.
frenetic – I agree completely. And it’s interesting to note that it’s only organizations of the far-left (the Solidarity Federation and the IWCA both spring to mind) which actually DO take such criticism on-board and do something different.
On the other hand, there is also the danger that focusing on more local and single-issue national campaigns becomes a delaying strategy in order to avoid confronting the class struggle. This is why class struggle is so unique amongst all other struggles – it alone is the truly explosive confrontation. It certainly IS more difficult to overthrow a bourgeois democracy than chase local drug dealers off an estate – but that is a justification for the privileged status of marches on Parliament, Downing Street etc.
Local activism versus national demos? Dave, how about a future post on that topic?
Yes,at TD,
TOFA
and yes, nothing about me, its about caring for people here now, what a strange comment, the Left does has a ‘historic mission’ to defend the poor etc, doesn’t it
dave can you delete the cross posting by TOFA, no outing other user names surely
Oh, on another board which is used reguarlarly (so discussing things on boards is spamming) this was posted on the issue of left priorities, with some exceptions, the SP, some non aligned lefties, etc, i think it holds some truth.
The real reason is the fear of the mundane. ———never got in to politics for the humdrum,the everyday,the concerns for ordinary people in there own street. They got in to it for action,marches with exotic looking rebels,the whiff of change and revolution,crowds of fermenting anger,slogans and green army jackets and yasser Arafat tea towels. Not old bags dying in council flats or disabled people being forced to work beyond there capacities,i mean its just not sex is it.
I would suggest that copy and pasting identical messages on three or more forums is exactly that: spamming.
Thanks for telling us the real reason for the battle against an imaginary left which goes on in your head so often.
Dave, can you delete this ad-hom abuse
Can you delete frenetic’s spam as well?
See U75, Socialist Unity, John McDonnell’s blog and probably several others for proof.
So what if Hamas won the vote in Gaza?
Anyone with even a British education knows that fascists have come to power via the ballot box in the past – it doesn’t make them any less fascist.
Oh and if Hamas’s genocidal anti-semitism doesn’t bother you (and given the Trot lefts attitude to gays and women, there is no point even opening those discussions) – try asking some Palestinian trade unionists about Hamas’s record with organised labour?
You are siding with racist, homophobic, union-crushing, jew-hating murderers.
And you call yourself ‘left’?
Shabba Goy, I recently posted details of a protest outside the Israeli embassy on the website Yahoo! and my email inbox received the most unbelievable Islamaphobic filth. I was told, for instance, that the police should shoot all the protestors so that we could all meet our “pig prophet mohammed”. Does this mean that I go around attacking left-wing people who have sympathy for Israel because they are aligning themselves with these Islamaphobes? I mean, Olmert is an explicit racist – he literally believes that Israeli lives are worth more than Palestinian lives ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/olmert-israeli-lives-worth-more-than-palestinian-ones-405126.html ), a racist philosophy which we can only assume is now being actualized in Gaza.
But, no, I don’t opt for that line of attack – because, firstly, I don’t have to: it’s clear that we must support any resistance to Israeli war crimes. And, secondly, I have experience which you (if we can infer anything from your comment) seem not to have. I have actually worked in political coalitions – and the reason for a coalition (as opposed to full-scale merger) is precisely that the cooperating parties DO hold significant disagreements which would prevent a full-scale merger.
So perhaps the reason that you hold this adolescent attitude of being so very strict and ultra-left and not working with others, is to be put down to a lack of experience. Maybe it’s time for you to admit the harsh realities of how the left can achieve some success and, oh, you know… grow up.
Some good photos here (much better than the usual camera-phone standard we use)
and some thoughts on the mobilisations and the relations between the left and young Muslims
And another shameless plug…
David Rosenberg has written a guest post for Stroppyblog on the left and the bigger picture re Gaza:
http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/guest-post-by-david-rosenberg-left-need.html
“it’s clear that we must support any resistance to Israeli war crimes”
You see, that is one of the problems. ANY resistance?
You don’t draw the line at anything?
Thankfully you are nothing to do with this conflict. You do not matter and nor does your disgusting opinion.
The real problem is that Hamas do believe ANY ‘resistance’ is justified.
Even though what they carry out can hardly be called ‘resistance’.
If these ‘Muslim warriors’ had any balls they would form an army and try to invade Israel – but they don’t, they fire rockets at kindergartens.
The tragedy in this conflict is the loss of innocent life – the positive is the death of Hamas fash scum.
We need much less of the former and much more of the latter – let them get their martyrdoms and fuck off to paradise.
“Anyone with even a British education . . . “
Ah bless. Nothing like a sprinkle of prejudice last thing at night.
yeah, pretty shabby the way Dave Rosenberg was treated on SU blog,even after the thread has been “filleted” by the admins
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3348#comment-111668
“If these ‘Muslim warriors’ had any balls they would form an army and try to invade Israel – but they don’t, they fire rockets at kindergartens.”
I think that comment sort of sums up how much you seem to know about this situation i.e. next to nothing. The idea that the people in the Gaza strip could form an army to invade Israel is total gibberish. You’ve been watching too many episodes of Lost, I think.
You’re quite right that I don’t have anything to do with this situation – however, that is a strength. My evaluation is neutral; I have no reason to support one side or the other until I have reviewed the facts. Perhaps you do have a stake in this situation – maybe that is why you are aligning yourself with the racists and the war criminals.
And, yes, I absolutely do believe in ANY resistance to evil. I’ve had this same discussion on here in the recent past, but let me restate the principle: the more one internalizes utilitarian principles, the more one’s political opponents can take advantage of it and the more likely they are to win. So, for me, the consequence of internalizing this sort of utilitarianism is that one has to surrender immediately – if you adopt a view of resistance which means you will not win and that lives will be pointlessly endangered, then ethically you should not proceed. As it happens, I admire the Israelis for NOT succumbing to the utilitarian view (even though their PR machine is ruthless enough to attack Hamas in the international media on utilitarian principles).