The War in Gaza and Two States

As I wrote in my blog a few days ago the current invasion of Gaza by Israel shows why the demand for Two States is not only dead, but why it is a dangerous illusion. See: Lessons of Gaza . The Left is all over the place on this issue. The SWP continues to tail the reactionaries of Hamas, making itself indistinguishable from them just as it previously proclaimed its synonymity with the clerical-fascists of Hezbollah. The Socialist Party, which advocates Two States has effectively dropped that demand for the duration in the face of the overwhelming tide of hostility towards Israel’s attacks. The AWL, to its credit, but given its position in relation to Zionism not too unsurprisingly, has resisted the temptation to give uncritical support to Hamas, but righteously condemns Israel for its “obscene” actions. At least Sean Matgamna has, perhaps, answered the question he posed several months ago when he asked “If Israel attacked Iran, on what basis would we condemn it?” Most Marxists knew the answer to that question at the time. Its good to see that Sean is catching up. The problem is that the AWL’s politics, like most of the left, remains at the level not of proletarian internationalism, but of moral indignation.

Yes, Israel’s actions are obscene. The fact that Israel has been using white phosphorous gives the lie to one apologist for Israel who posted to the AWL website that Israel was trying to minimise civilian casualties!!! But, war is obscene, and brutalised individuals sent to war by their state do commit obscene acts. So long as Capitalism exists there will be war, and there will be such obscenity. As Sean himself states this action has a logic for the Israeli State, just as all wars have logic for the ruling classes that launch them, even if it is an obscene logic. Moral outrage at such obscenity is understandable and necessary on one level, but for a Marxist it is far from being enough. We are not pacifists. We do not object to war on moral grounds, but on class grounds, we try to show to workers why it is inevitable so long as class society continues. As Trotsky put it,

“Our agitation in connection with the war and all our politics connected with the war must be as uncompromising in relation to the pacifists as to the imperialists.
“This war is not our war. The responsibility for it lies squarely on the capitalists. But so long as we are still not strong enough to overthrow them, and must fight in the ranks of their army, we are obliged to learn to use arms as well as possible!

“Just as every worker, exploited by the capitalists seeks to learn as well as possible the production techniques, so every soldier in the imperialist army must learn as well as possible the art of war so as to be able, when the conditions change, to apply it in the interests of the working class.

“We are not pacifists. No. We are revolutionaries. And we know what lies ahead for us.”

“On The Question of Workers Self-Defence”, p105 Writings 1939-40

Our task is not to mirror the pacifists and simply condemn war for its obscenity, but to explain its causes within class society, and thereby to offer a programme that can lead workers to a solution. That solution cannot rest with simply telling workers to throw in their lot with the clerical-fascists, it certainly cannot come through an expectation that imperialism will provide a solution via the UN or other agency, and nor can it come through advocating a Two State solution that is further away than it has ever been, and which could only be imposed from above by imperialism in conjunction with Israel, and the Arab bourgeoisie.

The events in Gaza, and the responses to it show what is wrong with the politics of the left. It is superficial and therefore subjective and moralistic. It is not grounded in the objectivity of Marxism. The AWL’s politics typify it. Like the SWP the AWL’s current politics finds it heritage in the subjectivist politics of the “Third Camp”. The political “method” of that school was summed up by its creators James Burnham and Max Shachtman as “practical politics”. By that they meant a rejection of Marxist principle based upon the theory of historical materialism, and its philosophical presentation via Dialectics. Instead they argued that every event should be dealt with as an event in its own right, which should be dealt with on the basis of “common sense”. In short it is a philosophical justification of opportunism. Its advocates went the way of all Opportunists into the Camp of the bourgeoisie, of imperialism or, as in the case of the SWP, even worse into the arms of the worst kinds of reactionaries.

So, the AWL can give a pre-emptive defence of an Israeli attack on Iran, arguing that Israel has a right to defend itself against a non-existent attack from Iran, even if such an attack by Israel used massive force – which it would have to do to destroy Iranian nuclear installations – and wreaked carnage amongst the Iranian population, but when a real attack comes from Iran’s proxies in Hamas, the AWL is forced to condemn it! Such zig zags are typical of opportunist and centrist organisations. It is reminiscent of the bureaucratic centrist politics of Stalinism in the 1920’s and early 30’s.

Sean provides a checklist at the end of his article.

“Israel will not have peace until the Palestinians have peace, with justice — until they have a state of their own alongside Israel.”

Elsewhere in his piece Sean says that Israel is currently out to destroy Hamas. That is unlikely, the Israeli State needs Hamas. So long as Hamas exists it enables Israel to keep the Palestinians divided between Hamas and Fatah. It will want to significantly weaken Hamas in Gaza to strengthen Fatah and so facilitate further division. Its rather like the US coming in on the side of Britain and France in WWI, when Germany was winning. By so doing it prolonged the War and thereby weakened its main European rivals. The question is does the Israeli State actually want peace? The people who devised the neo-con revolution in the US, for example, advocated the creation of a feeling of external threat in order to justify a strong state. Not only does the current situation in the Middle East of perpetual conflict strengthen the position of the US, but it justifies its relationship with Israel as a strong client in the region acting as a conduit for US interests. It also means that “normal” politics in Israel and most of the region are suspended swamped by a concern over security.

Moreover, given Sean’s willingness to justify an Israeli strike against Iran as a state which MIGHT attack Israel, how can he argue that the creation of yet another hostile, class state, right on Israel’s border, holding a knife to its throat, possibly increases Israel’s security or chances of peace??? Come on even the politics of “common sense” must have problems with that logic!

“Israel should stop its onslaught on the Palestinians in Gaza. It should withdraw immediately from Gaza and the West Bank.”

What does “should” mean here. In determining that Israel would have “good reason” to attack Iran, Sean based that statement on how things look from the perspective of the Israeli state. If he were to use the same method then on what basis “should” it do what he says. It clearly thinks it “should” do what it is doing. We might think it “should” stop, but such thoughts are impotent unless we have some means by which of forcing Israel to do what we want it to do. For now we don’t.

“It should urgently seek agreement with those in the Arab world prepared to trade recognition of Israel and normalisation of relations between Israel and the Arab states for Israeli agreement to withdraw to the 1967 borders.”

But again, what does “should” mean. In both of these “shoulds” Sean is not providing a programme of working class action that could counter the Israeli state, what he is doing is giving advice to the Israeli state on how to act! Unfortunately for Sean, the Israeli State, like other bourgeois states he and the AWL seek to advise, have plenty of their own experts to give such advice.

“The working class and the internationalist socialists in Israel and in the Arab countries, should advocate peace and working class unity across all the divides, on the basis of a two state settlement: the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel and recognition of Israel by the Arab states and peoples.”

Yes, of course they should advocate peace and working class unity across borders – and apple pie and motherhood too if they wish – but the question is on what basis, and how to achieve it. It is clear that no such advocacy can be on the basis of a Two State solution. There has been as Sean accepts a sort of Two State solution already. It has led to the kind of consequences I predicted 20 years ago. On the one hand Israel will not allow any such State to be a real state. It will react to any attacks against it in the way it has just done in Gaza. Those on the Palestinian side who continue to believe that they should have a state stretching from the river to the sea will continue such attacks, and if as in Gaza over the last two years, they gain control of the state apparatus, they will use it to strengthen their economic, social and military position to better conduct such attacks. The only alternative to Israeli action against such a scenario is the establishment of an authoritarian, strong state under Fatah or some other bourgeois faction that removed civil liberties and the possibility for such organisations to act i.e. that they acted as a sort of comprador regime on behalf of Israel. It would undoubtedly be used against the Palestinian workers even more than against Hamas and other such groups.

Not even the democratic elections that resulted in a Hamas government were accepted by Israel or its imperialist backers. So long as Israel continued to act in the way it has, by incursions, blockades, and so on the position of organisations such as Hamas would be strengthened. They would argue, not unreasonably, that the state they had was not a real state, that they did not have real independence and so on. That only a single state in the whole of Palestine could ensure that. The difference would be that now they would have the benefits of a state apparatus to pursue that aim. Such a situation would likely have implications for that large number of Palestinians living in Israel itself. Similarly, increased tension would be likely with Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and anyone who thinks that Israel is going to force those settlers to leave is living in cloud cuckoo land.

“Working class socialists in Israel and in the Arab countries should oppose and fight the chauvinists on one side, and the Islamic clerical fascists and the Arab and Islamic chauvinists, on the other.”

Yes they should, but on the basis of what programme, what set of demands?

“Socialists in Britain must demand that Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders and for the immediate setting up of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state in contiguous territory.”

What is the point of raising such a demand when we have absolutely no means of bringing it about??? Its like Trotsky said about the second world war above,

“Our agitation in connection with the war and all our politics connected with the war must be as uncompromising in relation to the pacifists as to the imperialists.

“This war is not our war. The responsibility for it lies squarely on the capitalists. But so long as we are still not strong enough to overthrow them, and must fight in the ranks of their army, we are obliged to learn to use arms as well as possible!”

We should only raise demands around which workers can mobilise with some prospect of success.

“Socialists must oppose the vicarious Arab and Islamic chauvinism of the kitsch left, who combine with Islamic clerical fascists and others to turn the demonstrations against the war in Gaza into festivals of Arab and Islamic reactionary hostility to Israel's continued existence.”

Again yes, but on the basis of what programme? All the AWL can offer as an alternative is the demand for “Two States”, a demand which Israel and the US has no real intention of bringing about, a demand which workers themselves under current conditions cannot bring about, and which would were it to be achieved under current conditions would inevitably strengthen the reactionaries on both sides.
What is needed is a programme for Jewish and Arab workers to unite around. A Communist International organisation if it existed would today have as one of its main tasks the building of common Jewish/Arab workers organisations in Israel/Palestine. Those organisations would need to begin to develop a programme of democratic demands around which to mobilise Jewish and Arab workers. It would include the setting up of autonomous regional structures, full and equal democratic rights for everyone living in the territory over which the Israeli state currently exercises effective control including Gaza and the West Bank, including the right to elect representatives to the Knesset. Those organisations would need to counterpose workers democratic organisations such as Factory Committees, and Neighbourhood Committees to the sectarian organisations which provide the basis of support for the clerical-fascists, and which would also act to further workers class interests as well as their basic democratic rights. It would mean workers developing their own workers defence squads to provide protection against the attacks by the clerical-fascists. In short it means developing a programme around which both Jewish and Arab workers can mobilise here and now for achievable demands rather than some pie in he sky solution for some time in the unforeseeable future.