The Lessons of Gaza

The clearest lesson from the events in Gaza over the last week is that the demand for a Two State solution is a dangerous illusion. Twenty years ago when the Workers Socialist League, of which I was hen a member, adopted this position I argued against it for reasons which the current events have born out.

Two years ago Israel removed itself from Gaza, both its troops and its settlers. Its reasons for doing so may have been cynical, but its reasons for leaving do not change the fact that it did leave. It left as part of a tacit agreement with Bush that it would effectively have a free hand to continue its more important settlement of the West Bank, a settlement which means that the West Bank could never be a viable independent state, that it could exist as little more than a series of Bantustans. It left knowing that absent Israeli settlers in Gaza it could be freer to respond to attacks coming from Gaza without concern for those settlers being held hostage. It did so in order to give a facile nod in the direction of a sham peace process that was supposed to lead towards a Two States solution, but which no-one other than those who wanted to believe this fiction could have have been taken in by.

Yet, whatever cynical reasons there were for Israel's withdrawal, it did nevertheless withdraw. No longer could Gaza be described as "Occupied". And in reality, the consequence was that, what those that argue for a Two State solution want, was established. Gaza became if not a State, then certainly a proto state. Those that advocate a Two state solution don't like to admit that that is the case. because the history of what followed is precisely what I said twenty years ago would happen, and demonstrates not only why the Two State solution is no solution at all, but why it is a dangerous illusion that Marxists certainly should have no part in.

The consequence of the establishment of this proto state was not the strengthening of any democratic forces, not even bourgeois democratic forces let alone the strengthening of the Palestinian Labour movement, which might have held out the prospect of a more progressive solution. Nor did it result in the strengthening of any tendency towards more peaceful relations with Israel. On the contrary, as I had suggested twenty years ago, it had the complete opposite consequence. It led to the election of Hamas, and subsequently to a Civil War between Hamas and Fatah, which Hamas quickly won. It led to the inevitable strengthening within the borders of Gaza of those elements who recognise that a Two State solution will mean the continued subjection of Palestinians to outside forces, and those who will settle for nothing less than a Palestinian State occupying the whole of Israel. The removal of Israel led first to the consolidation of those elements represented by Hamas at the expense of Fatah, and from then on to the utilisation of the advantages of the proto state apparatus to strengthen their social and political position, and more importantly their military position. Israel is right to say that in the last two years Hamas has used the situation to organise itself into a more effective military machine. Just as I argued twenty years ago would be the inevitable consequence of the creation of a separate Palestinian State, under the conditions which pertain in Israel/Palestine. And after all as Lenin always said, the truth is always concrete. We have to look at what the demand for Two States means within the conditions that actually exist now in Israel/Palestine, and are likely to persist for some time, not within some set of ideal conditions for the establishment of such a separate state.

But, that history has other lessons. Having gone to great lengths to advocate democracy to the people of the Middle East, the US, was the first to reject the democratic elections in Palestine that brought Hamas to power. Again as I argued twenty years ago the Two States solution has nothing in common with the policies developed at the beginning of the last century by the Communist International in relation to the National Question or the Colonial Question (The CI recognised that these were two different questions, which most modern Leninists fail to do). In those cases what we had were viable potential states - Lenin actually opposed the idea of small countries seeking independence as reactionary. In the case of the National Question, which is the closest to Israel/Palestine we had different peoples subjected to the same State. In the case of the Colonial Question we had colonised people ruled by a Colonial State, which existed as a separate entity to the home State of the coloniser. Palestine certainly does not fall into this last category. It does not fall happily into the first because de jure the "Occupied Territories" exist as a separate geographical entity separate from Israel. De Facto the people of Palestine and Israel are subject to the rule of the same State, the Israeli State.

The states that the CI advocated should have self-determination were countries which could carve out for themselves such self-determination not as some legalistic fiction, but in reality, to be as independent as any other state can be within the context of a global capitalist economy. That was never going to be true of a Palestinian State. No Palestinian State could come into existence purely on the basis of a struggle by the Palestinians alone - even with the support of the International Labour movement. A Palestinian State could only come into existence with the agreement of Israel, and with the support of imperialism, and the bourgeois Arab states. The demand for Two States is an appeal to imperialism and bourgeois democracy, not a mobilising demand for the Palestinian and Jewish masses to mobilise around. The experience of the last two years demonstrates that clearly. US imperialism supports democracy only provided that democracy produces the results it desires. A basic element of self-determination is that a people should be free to elect the rulers it chooses. The US rejection of the election of Hamas shows thaat such a basic requirement of self-determination would never be granted to a Palestinian State.

No State can enjoy complete freedom within the context of a world capitalist economy, anymore than any company can enjoy such freedom of action. Yet, there is a difference between recognising this fact, and the fact that some States simply cannot function as viable economic units. A look at even some of the small states in Europe such as Andorra, or Lichtenstein, which have considerable advantages over a ;potential Palestinian State, shows that they are completely dependent upon their relations with their larger neighbours, and exist largely on the basis of acting as tax havens and such like capable thereby of sustaining their small populations. It is difficult to see how Palestine could exist as a viable entity even on this basis. The population of Gaza is no larger than that of a medium size British city. It is wholly dependent on Israel even for basic things such as electricity. The almost complete dismemberment of the West Bank, let alone its physical separation from Gaza means that even basic requirements of communication, and transport are so fragmented that it could never function effectively. Certainly, it could not do so without considerable support from Israel and other neighbouring states, without considerable financial support from imperialism. In what sense would this be a state enjoying self-determination?

The other experience of the last two years is in fact a demonstration of this. Hamas spokesmen initially defended their rocket attacks o the last few weeks by speaking of their struggle against Occupation. Clearly, this could not be occupation of Gaza because Israel had left two years ago! In fact, what the Hamas spokesmen meant was Israel's occupation of Israel! They seem to have realised that this was a weak argument, and have more recently changed the argument to focus on Israel's economic blockade of Gaza. There is little to be gained in looking at the rights and wrongs of that blockade. The point is that it demonstrates why Two States can never be a real solution. The USSR was blockaded by imperialism yet survived, so has Cuba.

Every Marxist must have sympathy with the Palestinians. Our sympathy is always with the oppressed not the oppressor, even where the oppressed - partly as a result of that oppression - appoint reactionary leaders of their struggle. But, we are not liberal moralisers. Our sympathy might lead us to explain rather than condemn the actions of the oppressed when they lash out through terroristic acts, such as indiscriminate rocket attacks, but it can never lead us either to support such terrorist tactics, or to give political support to the reactionary leaders. Our task is to provide real solutions for the oppressed, solutions that do not depend upon the good graces of imperialism, or bourgeois democracy, but rely upon the only thing the working masses can rely upon, themselves, and their collective strength. The fact that such solutions might be hard, might even not result in success does not change that duty.

The only solution for Israel/Palestine is one that flows through such self-activity of the Palestinian and Jewish masses, and it does have to be a joint struggle. Both have a great deal to gain from such a struggle. The Israeli state and the Palestinian terrorist leaders have a symbiotic relationship. The Palestinian leaders exist for no other reason than the ability to mobilise the masses around nationalistic demands and hatred of Jews. The Israeli State on the basis of those terrorist attacks exists within a context where normal politics can be suspended on the basis of the need to focus on security. Both Jewish and Palestinian workers lose out under such an arrangement. The demand for two States only perpetuates it.

The precondition for progress in Israel/Palestine is he development of joint Israeli/Palestinian workers organisations. The next requirement is a recognition that whatever the juridical situation the Palestinians live under the aegis of the Israeli State. In fact, there situation is really a grossly exaggerated equivalent of the situation that Northern Irish Catholics were in, deprived of equal rights with their Protestant neighbours. The first requirement for addressing the needs of the Northern Irish Catholics was not a demand for a separate state, or even joining with the Southern State, but was to address that immediate problem of inequality and oppression. It was what led naturally to the Civil Rights Movement. The basic demand for addressing the position for the Palestinians today is not a separate state, or even the establishment of a single secular state - which really means the destruction of Israel - but the creation of a Civil Rights Movement that can unite both Jewish and Palestinian workers, for a struggle for basic democratic and Civil Rights for all Palestinians, including the right to elect representatives to the Knesset. It should include the right as Lenin argued in similar conditions in Russia, for the greatest possible autonomy for clearly defined groups within specific geographical areas. This is the approach Lenin and the CI took in relation to the National Question as opposed to the Colonial Question. Lenin argued that we should advocate the establishment of new bourgeois states only in extreme cases. Instead, he argued for maintaining the unity of workers where they existed within a single state, and for developing a programme for building that unity where national oppression undermined it. Such an approach not only relies as Marxists should always do on the self-activity of the working class, but helps build the unity of workers across borders, it is a struggle they can wage and win with their own resources, and in doing so unites them against their real enemy, undermining both the Israeli bourgeois state and the reactionary nationalist Palestinian leaders. It also provides the kind of lead around which thee Arab masses throughout the Middle East can be enthuses, and launch their own struggles for democratic rights.

If, A separate Palestinian State is to be created then it will only be created on the basis of such a struggle as that set out above having been waged, a struggle which unites Palestinian and Jewish workers and changes the reality within which such a demand is raised.

PS.

There has been a lot of talk in recent years about asymmetric warfare - the notion that a weak group can wage war against a much more powerful force by using unconventional methods, for example Al Qaeda's use of planes to crash into the Twin Towers. Such notions are dangerous pseudo military science. They give weak groups such as the Palestinians false hope that they can win such struggles, or at least inflict sufficient damage on their opponent to cause them to give in. The fact remains that a large military power such as the US cannot be defeated by such means. All Marxists should oppose the current attacks by Israel on Gaza, but in truth it makes no more sense for Hamas to complain about Israel's response to its rocket attacks than it does for a six stone weakling to complain about the fact that a 14 stone man responds to their repeated ineffectual slaps, by hammering him into the ground. That in truth is the lunacy of asymmetrical warfare. Rather, the truth lies better with Sun Tsu who in the "Art of War", recommends avoiding such unequal struggles, and only fighting those battles you have already in reality won. The way to do that is by building the necessary forces by which such victory is assured.