====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
John: >> To claim that the "independence of Gaza ... is a fact" is simply absurd. >> How many independent countries are denied the right to control >> their own borders, immigration, travel, sea space, defence policy, >> the right to an army. Luko: > Lebanon. Somalia. Me: Of course Somalia's independence is only a legal formality. It is not truly or meaningfully independent, as I'm sure everyone here would agree. Lebanon's independence is slightly more credible but its existence is pretty tenuous too in many respects. I don't think a resolution to the Palestinian issue will come about beyond the context of the greater Arab revolution, which is likely (unfortunately) to have a strongly Islamic current within it. John: >> Gaza is not independent of the PA and neither Gaza nor >> the PA are independent of Israel. Luko: > But the government in Gaza does not take orders from Tel Aviv. > The government in Gaza is an instrument of the Palestinian Arabs for their > self-determination, not a transmission belt of the colonial settler state. > That's why all imperialist powers treat the government in Gaza as an outcast > which has to be isolated. Me: It is true that the Hamas government is not simply a conduit for Israeli policy. It attempts to assert some sort of independent stance, but all its actions are constrained almost entirely by Israel. Even under international law, Gaza is still officially occupied territory because of the degree of day to day control Israel exerts over Gaza and its residents. I don't need to detail what those controls are. > That is what justifies to call Gaza the Palestinian state. Me: Even if the people in Gaza and their government don't? Considering Gaza as "the Palestinian state" would also play directly into the hands of those (even more than normally) right wing Zionists who are talking about a single state excluding Gaza. Why should we buy into that? Hamas certainly don't seem about to gift that to Israel. Fred: > No, my concern is with the international solidarity movement, where there > are strong tendencies in many radical groups to see their pet "one-state > solutions" as the only way forward, and partial steps as Bantustans, > sell-outs, or hopeless "concentration camps," with all these conclusions > seen as flowing from the apartheid analysis. While Edmundsen claims to > reject this kind of thinking, his comments about Gaza show that he > nonetheless buys into it. Me: "One-state solutions" are not simply pet projects of out-of-touch international solidarity movements. A one state solution is the objective of the PFLP and other left and secularist Palestinian groups. The PFLP for example sees a state within the 67 borders as a stepping stone to a final one-state solution. I think they are in a better position than Fred, Luko or me to make that sort of judgement. I'd be surprised if they see calls for an independent Gaza as a particularly shrewd strategy. A future Palestinian state within 67 borders would not be a Bantustan for several reasons. But mostly they have to do with Israel's needs. Israel doesn't need Palestinian labour in the way South Africa needed the labour of the Bantustans. South Africa wanted the Bantustans as nominal homelands and dumping grounds where a reserve army of labour could eke out an existence at little cost to the Apartheid state. Israel would primarily see a fragmented Palestinian state as merely a dumping ground for people it "doesn't" want living or working in Israel. Ideally, it would be so unpleasant that with the political issue of Palestinian independence "resolved", Palestinians would simply leave and they could eventually absorb them into a more "complete" Israel, including Judea and Samaria. But in the sense that Palestinian independence within such states would be largely constrained by Israel, that they would be largely surrounded by and economically and politically dependent on Israel, they would bear some resemblance to bantustans. In that sense, use of the term as a rhetorical device would not be dishonest, although it isn't one I would ever use without strict qualification. Many Palestinians do use the term apartheid themselves, especially in relation to the "separation barrier". I tend to avoid it myself, except, again in a qualified sense, to make specific points about what it is like for Palestinians to live day to day. New Zealand had a huge anti apartheid movement so the terms are a bit more familiar here amongst older people. > Edmundson suggests that Gaza cannot be independent in any sense because the > Palestinians and Gazan are not strong enough to prevent Israeli violations > of their borders and so forth. But this would apply as well to independent > to "independent" North Vietnam or "independent" North Korea or even (future > tense quite possibly) "independent Iran" which were not strong enough to > prevent their territory from being invaded and attacked by the imperialist > powers. Since Cuba could be blockaded militarily and is still b... (?) Me: No, that's not what I said. Plenty of countries are independent but suffer aggression from a stronger neighbour. What makes Gaza different is that the terms of Gaza's *so called independent* existence is predicated on its having no say in its border control, trade, defence (it has no army), control of its airspace etc, not simply as a fact of war, but as a fact of its existence. > That's why I brought forward Arafat's 1975 (at the UN) perspective of > establishing a state on any territory that can be liberated from Israel, > which still seems sound to me. And counterposing such rhetorical "final > solutions" to the partial struggles that go on and must go on today to > assert Palestinian sovereignty wherever it can be asserted seems to me like > complete sectarian nonsense. I don't think anyone here was "counterposing" "final solutions". Arafat's 1975 position was very different to his final position. I have no problem with his 1975 position, since it implies the establishment of liberated zones as stepping stones towards the liberation of all of Palestine. How that can work in practice now is not so simple. In a limited sense perhaps Gaza could be described as a besieged "liberated zone", but that's a far cry from it being "Independent" Palestine. As I noted above, I don't see Palestinian independence coming other than as part of the greater Arab revolution. The US clearly sees it this way too, which is why the most important Arab state, in terms of population, size of working class etc, and proximity to Israel - Egypt - is the biggest recipient of US military aid after Israel. Cheers, John ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
