At the conference of the WSL in the Summer of 1985, three different positions were discussed. One put forward by Bruce Robinson, argued for the existing position of a secular democratic Palestinian state, the second put forward by Sean Matgamna and Martin Thomas, argued for a two-state solution, and the third put forward by me argued that both of these other two were solutions that were bourgeois nationalist solutions, not socialist solutions, and both were equally utopian and reactionary. I proposed a third solution, which was for a workers struggle for equal political rights for all within Israel-Palestine, just as Lenin and the Bolsheviks had proposed within the Tsarist Empire, and for the establishment of a new federal state of Israel and Palestine.
The conference did not resolve the issue, and agreed to open the discussion to wider debate within the pages of the organisation's paper of the time – Socialist Organiser. I am reprinting, here, my article, carried in Socialist Organiser No. 241, of August 21st, which is a summary of my position at the time. The discussion in the paper, over a number of weeks, included contributions from the authors of the other motions to the WSL Conference, as well as from others outside the group such as Moshe Machover, and Tony Greenstein, and was supplemented by other discussions around the country. Within a matter of weeks, however, the group adopted the two-state solution position, which was already pretty assured to have been the case. Internal discussion on the issue, however continued.
In future posts, I will also reprint the actual papers I submitted for discussion in the run up to the conference, along with parts of the discussion papers of other contributors, as required for clarity, as well as others from the continued internal discussion in the following year. The arguments I set out, and summarised in this article, proved to be an accurate assessment of the problems faced, over the last forty years, in attempting to implement either the secular state or two state solutions. My position, during that time has, therefore, essentially, not changed, but only been strengthened, and elaborated. The position of the proponents of two states, has, however changed during that period, and for the worse, as I feared.
Today, the AWL openly proclaim themselves to be “Zionists”, and supporters of the bourgeois defencist position of “defence of the fatherland”, put forward by social patriots in World War I, and opposed by Lenin and the revolutionaries. That was not the case, in 1985, when this debate took place. At that time, the proponents of two states proclaimed that they were “committed anti-Zionists”, and described the Zionist state as “a Jewish-sectarian machine”, i.e. inherently racist.
At the start of the internal discussion, Clive Bradley wrote,
“1. I am both in theory and in practice a committed anti-Zionist. A large part of this article is concerned with how best to argue against and defat Zionism in different contexts.”
(WSL Internal Bulletin 127, July 1985)
Responding to a contribution that I had made, Martin Thomas wrote, in WSL IB 135,
“This greater Israel would be ruled by the existing Israeli state machine – a Jewish-sectarian machine. Whatever rights were won by the Arabs of the West bank and Gaza, they would not have real equality. The Israeli Arabs have a number of formal democratic rights and yet are oppressed.”
It is the dialectic of history that has taken them from the positions adopted, then, to their position, today, in which their pursuit of a bourgeois nationalist, rather than proletarian, solution led, inexorably, to them becoming bourgeois nationalists, and defencists. Once you have embarked on that road, so that you adopt the position that the one specific bourgeois state – Israel – has a right of self-defence, you must logically, argue that all bourgeois states have a right to self-defence, which was the position of the social patriots in WWI and II. That is particularly true, when you have based a lot of your criticism of “Left anti-Semitism” on the argument that the Zionist state is treated differently to every other bourgeois state
The rationale of the secular state solution was an acceptance of the idea of the physical destruction of the existing Israeli state, by war, of the type already seen conducted by the PLO, as well as by neighbouring bourgeois Arab states. It is a thoroughly reactionary solution, and leads to idiocies such as represented by the slogan “We are all Hezbollah Now”. But, the Two State Solution, was no less idiotic and unachievable, and, certainly, no less bourgeois nationalist, in content.
For the last forty years, it acted as a sop to western bourgeois liberals, of peace and harmony tomorrow, as well as buying off the bourgeois Arab and Palestinian leaders. But, being unachievable, on the basis of independent workers struggle, and with the only means of achieving it being its implementation, from above, by US imperialism, which had no intention of doing so, it served merely to enable the Zionist (“Jewish-sectarian”) state to continue to occupy Palestine, and to expand its territory, inherent within its own nationalist, colonialist ideology, and, consequently, to make the two state solution even more a utopian and reactionary pipe dream of liberals.
The first part of what I reprint, here, did not appear in the paper, but was included in my submission to it. The article, as it appeared in the paper, begins from “... some comrades have argued...”
~
There are a number of points on which everyone, in SO, as far as I know, agree on,
We are opposed to the oppression of the Palestinians, and we support the Palestinians struggle whatever programme and tactics they adopt to oppose that oppression
At the same time, we reserve the right to criticise their programme and tactics
Fundamental to ending the oppression of the Palestinians is that they have some means of exercising their national identity
We are opposed to the Jews being oppressed in any future state, which may be established
because two separate nations exist on the same territory, the solution Marxists usually put forward, self-determination, is inapplicable in a pure form, because self-determination for one would, de facto, deny it to the other
The ultimate solution to all oppression, in the area, is the establishment of a United Socialist States of the Middle East.
Problems
The problems that have to be
tackled, therefore, are:-
How can the Palestinians be enabled to exercise their national identity
What arrangements will allow both nations to retain and exercise their national identity, enjoy some measure of self-determination, and, at the same time, guarantee, for both nations, that they will not be oppressed.
What solution will act to break the working-class, of both nations, from their bourgeois leaders and rulers, and unite them in the fight for socialism and a Socialist United States of the Middle East.
The Democratic Secular State
In trying to resolve this problem, some comrades have argued that the present Zionist state must be smashed, and, in its stead a Democratic Secular State of Palestine be established. The rights of Jews, in this state, would be protected by some form of federalism, which would ensure a large measure of self-government for Jews, in those areas where they are a majority of the population, and likewise for Palestinians.
The trouble with this is that there are only three ways which it could come about. Either the Jewish ruling class decide to hand it over, or the Jewish workers carry through a socialist revolution, or the state is defeated militarily. The first option is inconceivable. If the Jewish workers overthrew capitalism, and established a workers' state, our job would be to defend that state, and fight for the extension of the revolution, not to call for that state to be handed over to Arafat or some other bourgeois Arab leader. As such a state would almost certainly guarantee the rights of Palestinians, the demand would, in any case, be somewhat redundant.
We are left, then, with the final option of a military defeat. But, if the Zionist state was defeated militarily, this would so poison relations between the two nations that any hope of co-operation within one state would be destroyed for a long time. In effect, it would simply be running the history of Palestine in reverse. Instead of Zionism establishing its state by militarily defeating the Palestinians, we have the Palestinians establishing their state by militarily defeating Zionism.
There is a further problem with the Democratic Secular State, as a solution. Given the military strength of Israel, there is no possibility of the Palestinians militarily defeating the Israeli state. The only possible way it could succeed is with the support of other Arab states. Under such circumstances, a defeat for the Israeli state would not be an advance for the Palestinian masses, but for Arab capital. It would be an opportunity to carve up Israel, and, at best, establish a Palestinian state dependent on surrounding bourgeois Arab states.
Two States
Other comrades have argued that, because of these, and other, reasons, the Democratic Secular State has no grip on reality. As an alternative, they have put forward the idea of establishing a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, and, in some versions, a struggle for a modified Israel, in which the rights of the remaining Palestinians would be protected.
The advantage of this solution, it is argued, is that it allows the Palestinians the right to have their own state, without removing the right of the Jews to theirs. The West Bank and Gaza are not officially part of Israel, but are occupied territories, taken by Israel, in the 1967 war. Withdrawal of Israel, and the establishment of a Palestinian state would, therefore, simply be a matter of Palestinians exercising their democratic rights. It would be something which, in principle, the Palestinians could fight for and win, on their own.
There are, however, more problems with the Two State solution than with the Democratic Secular State. Firstly, the establishment of a separate state would be opposed not only by the Israeli State, but by the Jewish working-class. The reason is that the history of the PLO's military campaign has been one of using neighbouring Arab states as bases from which to launch its attacks on Israel, including against Jewish civilians. A basic right of a Palestinian state would be the right to a standing army. Imagine, then, what fears Jewish workers would have about a Palestinian state on their doorstep which would no longer be restricted to launching guerrilla attacks, but which would be tooled up with all the military hardware and military technology of a fully-fledged state. Imagine their fears being heightened by the fact that some 700,000 Palestinians would still remain trapped inside Israel, still denied democratic rights, and that such a Palestinian state could hardly be expected to stand idly by when those Palestinians called on it for assistance.
In short, whilst, in principle, the Palestinians could fight for the establishment of a separate Palestinian state, in practice, there is no more chance of it being achievable than the Democratic Secular State. To that extent, it lacks the same grip on reality. In effect, it is a call to the Jewish workers to become selfless internationalists, prepared to support the Palestinians right to a state, knowing full well that it will be used against them the first time some conflict with the Israeli Arabs occurs, or else it is a demand for such a Palestinian state, once established, to stand aside from the 700,000 Palestinians still living in Israel.
In SO 234, Martin Thomas and John O'Mahony argued that these Palestinians, left in Israel, should have the right, where they are a majority, to secede to the new state. This argument is a cop out. If a separate Palestinian state was established, the Palestinians, in the rest of Israel, being oppressed, would want to secede to the new state from day one. So, why not start off by calling for the new, separate, Palestinian state to include the areas of Israel in which Arabs form a majority? In practice, hiding behind the idea of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, there lies the attitude, “sod the 700,000 Palestinians trapped in the rest of Israel.”
At best, the Two State Solution could offer self determination for some Palestinians, and some Jews. 700,000 Palestinians would remain trapped and oppressed in Israel. The establishment of a separate state would mean either that it intervened militarily to support those Palestinians (thus blowing apart the whole set up again), or else it stood aside. If it stood aside the position of the Palestinians, still in Israel, would, in fact, deteriorate. Their specific weight, as a proportion of the population would have been drastically reduced, and their ability to force change, from inside, would have been reduced, as a result.
Since 1967, Jews have also settled in the occupied territories. These settlers are often militant Zionists. They would be trapped in a new Palestinian state, and as devoid of rights as the Palestinians in Israel.
In many ways, therefore, such a partition would lead to the kind of “carnival of reaction”, on both sides of the border, as James Connolly predicted in Ireland. On both sides would be capitalist states within which would be trapped national minorities. In Israel, the racist, Zionist state would remain unchallenged, now with a large section of its most radicalised population, the Palestinian workers, hived off. With a new hostile neighbour on its border, the Zionist state would be even more able to avert class antagonism by rallying Jewish workers around the flag. Meanwhile, the link between Israel and US imperialism would remain, and would probably be strengthened.
On the other side of the border would be a feeble bourgeois, Palestinian state, economically dependent on neighbouring Arab capital. Such a state could offer nothing to the Palestinian workers, and even less for the minority Jewish population trapped within its borders, who would rapidly become the scapegoats for every deficiency.
For socialists, the most important part of the demands we raise, or solutions we advocate, is that they lead the working-class forward to realising the need to fight for socialism; that they mobilise the working-class, setting in motion the logic of class struggle. The demands which socialists put forward, in relation to the struggle of the Palestinians, therefore, must have this aim of (a) creating the maximum unity of Jewish and Arab workers, and (b) acting as stepping stones towards the overthrow of capitalism, and the establishment of a Socialist United States of the Middle East.
The problem with both the Democratic Secular State, and Two State solutions is that they are both bourgeois solutions. They remain on the territory of looking for bourgeois democratic solutions to the national question, hoping that this will then clear the field for “normal” class politics to develop. That approach is a collapse into the Stalinist stages theory, whereby it is argued that, before a socialist revolution can take place, there first has to be a national democratic revolution. In opposition to this, Trotskyists have put forward the theory of permanent revolution, arguing that the only force capable of carrying through the national and democratic revolution is the working-class, and that the workers would have to go beyond just the national democratic revolution to a socialist transformation. Whilst the post-war period has seen national and democratic revolutions carried out by forces other than the working class, the states that have been subsequently established have offered very little to the working-class and poor peasantry. The main thrust of the theory of permanent revolution, mobilisation of the working class to fight for socialist revolution alongside the national and democratic revolution, remains valid.
A socialist solution requires us to solve the national question by splitting the workers from their bourgeois leaders and rulers, and creating the maximum unity of the working class. In our analysis and programme for Ireland, SO has done this. We have broken from the rotten tradition of the so called Trotskyist Left, which has accommodated to bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalist movements. SO has refused to be swept up in the hysterical attempt to portray Sinn Fein as some left moving socialist party. We have refused to write off the protestant workers as just “tools of imperialism”, and, instead, we have proposed that it is necessary to try to win over the protestant workers by putting forward the idea of a federal United Ireland, in which their rights as a distinct community, would be guaranteed. A similar solution in Palestine offers the prospect of a principled solution which is not only consistently democratic, but, by its very nature could unite the Palestinian and Jewish workers in the struggle for it.
The United States of Israel and Palestine
One of the main problems with the Two States theory is that not only would the Israeli state oppose it, but so would the Jewish workers for the reasons already mentioned. For those who argue for the Two State solution, there is an implied characterisation of the Jewish workers as “tools of the Israeli state”. Nowhere is any distinction between Jewish workers and the Jewish state elaborated, and the strong impression is given that Jewish workers could never be won to supporting democratic rights for the Palestinians. From that flows the two state solution. It says, basically, “Sod the Jewish workers, they're just 'tools of the Zionist state', so advocate two states the Palestinians can fight for that on their own.”
If the Israeli Jews constituted an exploiting caste vis a vis the Palestinians (like the whites in South Africa) such an argument could be sustained, but they don't, and at least some of those who support Two States recognise that they don't. In which case, as Marxists we have a duty to advocate a programme which is aimed not just at the Palestinian workers, but at the Jewish workers too.
Imagine that you are a Jewish worker. You live in a society that has hyperinflation, would sink economically were it not for its link with US imperialism, has a massive military budget, conscription, and, in addition to that, your Trades Union federation is also the biggest employer in the country. Hardly a lot to offer. One might think that the main concern would, therefore, be to fight for a better standard of living, do something about the trades union so that it actually fought for you, that the military budget was cut, to free resources for more useful purposes etc. But, at the moment, these are not the main concern of Jewish workers. The reason is that they are more concerned at what they see as an external threat from neighbouring Arab regimes, and from the military campaign of the PLO.
The first step in winning Jewish workers away from the Israeli state is to remove those fears. A basic position of any Marxist should be to say that we are opposed to any attack on Israel by those Arab states, and that we are opposed to the military campaign of the PLO, other than where it is a matter of it acting purely as a self-defence squad against attacks by the Israeli state. The military campaign of the PLO, like the military campaign of the IRA, is an alternative to political struggle, not an integral and subordinate part of it. It is a typical petty-bourgeois strategy.
If the Palestinian workers were to approach Jewish workers on the clear basis that they opposed that military campaign, it would open up a powerful opportunity for political dialogue. The Peace Now campaign shows that Israeli workers do not like being in a continued state of war, and anyone who believes that the Jewish workers would prefer to remain in a state of war rather than be able to find a political solution to the problem has to be either anti-Semitic, or have a pretty low estimation of the working-class.
That political solution has to be one that is consistently democratic, that provides for the rights of both nations to exercise considerable self-government in those areas, where they constitute a majority, and which, at the same time, protects the rights of minorities. It requires the establishment of a federal United States of Israel and Palestine.
The Israeli state would obviously oppose such a solution, and so too, probably, would the bourgeois leaders of the PLO. Our job, as Marxists, however, is to mobilise the workers of both nations against their respective bourgeoisies, in the political struggle for the demand. As a demand aimed at the workers of both nations, it conforms with the method of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution – mobilising the working-class to fight not just for the national democratic revolution, but to deepen it into a fight for socialism.
It is an algebraic demand – mobilising the workers without limiting, in advance, the scope and aims of that mobilisation. The demand for a United States of Israel and Palestine would have to be supplemented by other demands. A democratic programme would have to be elaborated, which would protect the rights of minorities. In addition, we would need to raise various transitional demands such as the Sliding Scale of Wages, disbandment of the standing army and establishment of workers' militias, a crash house building programme, financed by a massive reduction in the military budget, so that the Palestinian refugees could be rehoused etc. Put in this way, the Jewish workers could see that they did not need a massive military machine, that their living standards could be improved, if they were to come to a political settlement with the Palestinians, and their potential for winning such improvements would be considerably strengthened if the Palestinian working-class was fighting alongside them.
Lenin argued, “against the practicalness of the bourgeoisie, the proletarians advance their principles in the national question....” The Democratic Secular State and Two State solutions, however, are not expressions of our principles. They are expressions of the principles of bourgeois democracy, which have nothing to say about the struggle for socialism, other than it is put off until some indefinite time in the future after the national question has been resolved.
Those who support the two state solution have argued that, although the democratic secular state has the appearance, in theory, of offering a consistently democratic solution, in practice, it does not. The trouble is that the Two State solution does not, even in theory, offer a consistently democratic solution.
The demand for a United States of Israel and Palestine, however, does offer the possibility of a consistently democratic solution. Unlike the Democratic Secular State, it starts from the situation as it exists, and, as such, offers the prospect of a joint struggle by Palestinian and Jewish workers. In that it distinguishes between the interests and motivations of Palestinian and Jewish workers, as against their respective bourgeoisies, it differs from the Democratic Secular State and Two State solutions, which talk only in terms of the Palestinian and Jewish nations. By focusing on the Palestinian and Jewish workers, as the only force capable of resolving the problem, it also establishes the basis for deepening the struggle into one for socialism, in accordance with the theory of permanent revolution.
In contrast, both the Democratic Secular State and Two State solutions mirror the Stalinist stages theory. Both see the necessity of a first stage whereby a bourgeois democratic solution to the national question is achieved before “normal” class struggle can take place.
In that it requires an orientation to internationalism rather than nationalism, on the part of both Palestinian and Jewish workers, and to the need for socialist revolution rather than simply a bourgeois democratic revolution, it is much harder to argue for than either the Democratic Secular State or Two State solutions, which, as bourgeois solutions, both have some resonance with the bourgeois leaders of the PLO. To that extent, it might be described as less practical, but as Lenin said, “against the practicalness of the bourgeoisie, the proletarians advance their principles in the national question....”
~
In subsequent posts, I will also examine the contents of this article, in the light of the experience of the last forty years.
