Re: [Marxism] Israel, South Africa and the single-state non-solution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Nestor Gorojovsky: > I mean that given the fact of the Holocaust and the permanent drumbeat > in favor of Israel in post WWII Germany, the position of someone > attacking Israel in Germany is as difficult This notion is fairly widespread among leftists outside Germany, and seems plausible for obvious reasons, but it's actually just not true. One of the current governing parties, the CDU, does indeed make ritual professions of the Federal Republic's "special responsibility" for Israel during official state ceremonies and things of that nature, but that's mainly for the credulous international press and other states. The other governing party, the right-wing liberal FDP, has flirted openly with pro-Palestinian positions in the past through the now-deceased Jürgen Möllenmann. Nowadays it only keeps such positions burning on a low flame, though as the party of large capital, it obviously has more of an interest in expanding the sphere of influence of German capital in the Middle East, and hence is more open to flirting with pro-Arab policies or mild hints at anti-war positions with regard to Afghanistan, though obviously that's difficult given the current coalition partner. The mainstream bourgeois media, like Der Spiegel or the Süddeutsche Zeitung, are regularly full of reports of Isreali atrocities, and the Springer-owned Welt Online even regularly closes the comments feature for its articles on Israeli, because it nows the percentage of anti-Israel (and often enough anti-Semitic) comments will be quite high. What *is* true is that within the left in Germany, there is a fairly widespread anti-Israel sentiment, compared with the left in other countries. That sort of thing is the unfortunate consequence of a left that thinks the proper task of leftists is to get mixed up in the territorial claims of opposing national collectives. 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
Re: [Marxism] Israel, South Africa and the single-state non-solution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Lüko Willms escribió: > >I am also not so keen to demand that the Jewish settlements in the West > Bank should be demolished and their inhabitants being returned to the > pre-1967 Israel, as was done with the settlements on the Sinai peninsula and > later in the Gaza strip (where they destroyed all houses, but left only the > synagogues intact, a real provocation). Maybe one could demand some kind > of affirmative action. What has to be done in any case, is to dismantle the > fortress character of the settlements, and a disarmament of the settler > gangs. I think that people like Avnery -- which I respect a lot for his > courageous stand -- think that Jews should not live under Arab majority rule, > so that the people living in the settlements should all be evacuated. Yessir!! That´s to be bold and serious!! Never thought of the issue that way, which is obviously the right way. And of course, Avnery wants to keep Eretz Israel Jewish, this is true. It´s not a matter of hating Arab majority rule but of fearing the consequences of the non-existence of a Jewish state on all the Jews in the world, etc., etc., etc. Which of course boils down to "no Jewish minority again, thus Jewish majority always, thus Jews should not live under Arab majority rule". 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
Re: [Marxism] Israel, South Africa and the single-state non-solution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Angelus Novus escribió: > > > > Nestor Gorojovsky: > > >> [First of all, and though this is already known on this list, I >> would like to point out that Germany may probably be the country >> where a consequent Marxist defense of the Arab cause against the >> crimes committed by the State of Israel requires the highest degree >> of moral courage (and Austria, maybe). The moral equivalent, on >> "the enemy" side, would be that of someone in Hanoi defending the >> right of US to invade and storm Viet Nam in order to save the world >> from Communism.] > > Either Nestor didn't think before drawing this analogy, or he really > is saying that Germany's position vis-a-vis Israel is analogous to > Vietnam's position vis-a-vis the United States. Oh, no, don´t seek the hairs in the hen´s egg as we say in Argentina. It´s so much easier and less contorted. I mean that given the fact of the Holocaust and the permanent drumbeat in favor of Israel in post WWII Germany, the position of someone attacking Israel in Germany is as difficult as the position of someone defending US pervasive use of Agent Orange, in Viet Nam. 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
Re: [Marxism] Israel, South Africa and the single-state non-solution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Nestor Gorojovsky: > [First of all, and though this is already known on this list, I would > like to point out that Germany may probably be the country where a > consequent Marxist defense of the Arab cause against the crimes > committed by the State of Israel requires the highest degree of moral > courage (and Austria, maybe). The moral equivalent, on "the enemy" side, > would be that of someone in Hanoi defending the right of US to invade > and storm Viet Nam in order to save the world from Communism.] Either Nestor didn't think before drawing this analogy, or he really is saying that Germany's position vis-a-vis Israel is analogous to Vietnam's position vis-a-vis the United States. So the major capitalist power in Europe, which pushes around it's southern and eastern neighbors, is second only to China in terms of being a major export economy, and which is responsible more than any other state for the vicious destruction of Yugoslavisa, is in fact merely subservient to a crappy little client state of the U.S. in the Middle East? 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
Re: [Marxism] Israel, South Africa and the single-state non-solution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Lou wrote: At the moment the majority of the Hebrew-speaking workers in Israel support the maintenance of the Jewish state. This support helps keep them ideologically enslaved to the Israeli capitalist ruling class, blocking them from fighting for their own class interests. Unless and until the Israeli Jewish working class ends its support for the Israeli state and supports the demand of the Palestinian Arabs for a united, democratic, secular Palestine, it will remain the "cat's paw" of Zionist colonialism. This of course could also be an exact description of the Northern Irish situation. Just substitute "Protestant" for Hebrew-speaking and Israeli Jewish and British for Zionist and you have the Northern Ireland tragedy, encapsulated in three sentences. comradely Gary 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
Re: [Marxism] Israel, South Africa and the single-state non-solution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Ian Pace wrote: > Surely the biggest question for a single state is what its immigration (and > thus 'right of return') policy would be? An extension of the current Jewish > Right of Return to all those of Palestinian origin (however that is defined) > as well? I think the more far-sighted Zionists have figured out that they can continue to run the show even if every Palestinian scattered across the planet returns. Political power flows from economic power, something that seems lost on the single state theorists. Even though he is for a two state solution, another chimera, Michael Neumann gets to the heart of the problem in responding to Jeff Halper and Virginia Tilley, single state advocates: http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann05152007.html And how does this work in the snake oil one-state solution? Here the sales pitch gets murky. In Israel, Jewish property holders either keep what they have, or the disputes continue as they have since before Israel's foundation--it isn't clear. In the occupied territories, though, the settlers get a sweet deal: Jews in the occupied territories simply keep what they have. Am I kidding? Here we have Jeff Halper, justly celebrated for his Committee against House Demolitions, writing around 2003: "Israeli Jews wishing to live in the settlements could continue to do so under Palestinian sovereignty (which would permit the settlements to be integrated, of course), but would lose their role as extensions of Israeli control by remaining Israeli citizens. " [A Middle Eastern Confederation: A Regional 'two-Stage' Approach To The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict . A working paper by Jeff Halper, written around 2003)] Here he is again, writing in The Kansas City Jewish Chronicle on November 24, 2006: "The two-state solution is dead. Israel killed it (as Begin charged Sharon with doing back in 1977). The settlement enterprise has gone beyond the point of no return." And Virginia Tilley agrees: "...Israel must admit its Muslim and Christian population as citizens and then grapple with the ensuing tough work of pluralist democracy like the rest of us. "This was the hard-won South African solution, where the state now represents everybody. Seventeen languages and differing historical narratives are recognized and dignified. Whites have retained their property and wealth, while black Africans are rising rapidly to join the middle and upper classes. "...that we presently have a one-state solution--Israel's apartheid version--allows us to affirm a different one: a unified secular-democratic state, in which everyone is equal in dignity and rights, and where the Jewish and Palestinian national homes can share the land as they should." Note the glowing "Whites have retained their property and wealth". I gather that, come Tilley's revolution, Palestinians and Israelis will be equal in their right to stare at what was once a Palestinian home. This will be very good because it will 'recognize and dignify different historical narratives'. The more you look at claims about the settlements, the more suspicious you grow. Sure, the settlement enterprize has gone beyond the point of no return, and sure the settlements are there to stay. It's just that the settlers aren't: their buildings would house Palestinians quite as well as Jews. Is it impossible to get the settlers to give up their settlements? Not at all. If the Israeli army withdraws, the Palestinians would have no difficulty persuading the settlers it was time to leave. The Algerians did the same with settlers much more deeply rooted than in Palestine. If it's so impossible, why did it already happen--why did Israeli troops make it happen--in Gaza? It's impossible to get rid of the settlers only if the Israeli government supports them, that is, only if it's impossible to get the Israeli government to stop supporting them. But if that's impossible, how, is it possible that Israeli government will give up something far dearer to it--its home turf, its own existence, and the existence of a Jewish state, at the very least within 1948 borders? How are the settlements a tougher nut to crack than the state of Israel itself? What's the point of this one-state solution? If the settlements are something to be legitimated, why not say the same--as Tilley hints--of all Israeli land claims, everywhere in Palestine? Entrenching the settlements means a great big pat on the back for the very worst, least conciliatory, most violent political forces in Israel, the spoilt, fanatic racial supremacists who conceived the settler movement and made it into the formidable force it is today. It confirms that their strategy worked. Do Halper and Tilley really t
Re: [Marxism] Israel, South Africa and the single-state non-solution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == David Thorstad wrote: > I don't see how a single state would grant "the Jewish character of the > state" necessarily. Aren't demographics relevant here? About as relevant as they are in South Africa with 10 percent of the country being white. They figured out a way to keep the Black majority down after the end of formal apartheid, so Israel should have no problems especially given the corrupt leadership in the West Bank. In fact, the real question facing the Arab masses is how to break through the religious and class distinctions that keep them from fighting effectively. 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
Re: [Marxism] Israel, South Africa and the single-state non-solution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Surely the biggest question for a single state is what its immigration (and thus 'right of return') policy would be? An extension of the current Jewish Right of Return to all those of Palestinian origin (however that is defined) as well? Solidarity, Ian 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
