Is there a direct, economic determination that we can single out for the Israeli aggression? Among other causes, there are such "material" factors as Israeli demographics/lebensraum, which underlies its expansionist dynamic. In fact that is its reason for being, its justification. The whole peace agreement with the Palestinians, creating a Gaza bantustan as a cover for enlarging, creating and annexing settlements in the West Bank, is based on this logic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that while Israel itself may have industries, it does not have an organic economic basis. European Jewish settlers came in, seized Arab land, and used it for other purposes than its vocation. They built a massive military industry in line with the logic of a settler state and their assigned role. Israel is based on a lopsided economy. Is Israel even capable of producing its own domestic food consumption? I'd be willing to wager that if it weren't for the infusion of massive amounts of capital from outside, whether from the U.S. government or "private" sources, the Israeli state would collapse and/or be forced to democratize and secularize, especially since, first, much of its productive labor is, in fact, Palestinian and second, it would be forced to integrate with its neighbors. But, in any case the logic of the Israeli state is lebensraum, and to achieve this, it must have docile neighbors. The second point, which I want to reiterate is that Israel has a particular role in the international division of labor. The Zionist movement traded with the British: an escape from oppression for Jewish settlers in return for the role of gendarme. Given the logic and the role of the Zionist state, it would be hard to locate a single material (i.e., vulgar economic) cause for the apparently irrational act of committing genocide against their neighbors. But, there are levels and levels of determinations and mediations. (I still maintain that E.P. Thompson was good on this sort of thing). As I mentioned, Israel's role as praetorian guard squares quite well with the Bush administration's plans for the region, which DO have clear material bases, centering around the control of petroleum resources. However, a Marxist approach isn't distinguished by its insistence on direct economic causality. That would be, as Lenin called it, "vulgar economism." Wars have been waged by imperialism simply to open potential markets. The imperialist ruling classes often wage war to contain and reverse the class struggle and particularly its nationalist expressions. Make no mistake about it, Hezbollah's struggle against Israel, Iran's struggle against imperialism, Syria's struggle against imperialism, the Iraqui resistance, all these represent "pluses" on the balance sheet for the working class and plebeian forces, more generally, not only in their own countries, but around the world. And intransigent regimes and movements, such as these, represent obstacles to the unabridged right of imperial capital to do whatever it wants, a right explicitly affirmed by Washington, and especially the current administration, on various occasions. If we look at the U.S. war against Sandinista Nicaragua, that certainly didn't have a direct "economic basis." Sandinista Nicaragua simply represented a roadblock to the neoliberal vision Washington was imposing on the world and a tilt in the balance of class forces, a bad example, as many have said. It certainly doesn't have any strategic resources. And it may have seemed "irrational" for the Reagan and Bush administrations to destabilize the region, spend billions on a mercenary army, provide arms to an enemy state and traffic in drugs all to destabilize a tiny Central American country, particularly if one is looking for a direct material, economic explanation. I could say ditto for the Vietnam war, although, of course, later, Vietnam was found to have some petrol reserves. But, from the point of view of the global system of capital, these wars were/are hardly irrational. They were and are life-or-death, and as such as eminently "materialist." >Is there a material explanation? -- Michael F. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
