The Palestinian Bourgeoisie and the National Program

[jenyan1 <jenyan1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

         The ODA (Organization for Democratic Action) held its fourth
        convention on November 12-13, 1999. Soon afterwards we published
        a book in Arabic and Hebrew based on the convention's themes.
        Entitled The Palestinian Question and the Socialist Alternative,
        it is in three parts: The first is a discussion with the
        Palestinian National Movement and especially the Palestinian Left.
        The second relates to globalization and the crisis of capitalism,
        emphasizing the latter's need to make war in order to rule. The
        third part looks into globalization as it affects the Middle East
        and discusses a possible agenda for a solution to the Palestinian
        question. Many activists and scholars have urged us to translate
        the book into English. We have finally begun this project, relying
        on voluntary efforts. Here we publish Chapter Three, our critique
        of the Palestinian Left. We shall continue this critique in
        Chapter Four, next issue. We have decided to publish these
        sections because they relate to the frequently asked question:
        What has become of the Palestinian Left?


Since 1948, the key question for the Arab Left and the Marxist parties has
been this: What stand ought we to take toward the Arab national
bourgeoisie in general and the Palestinian in particular? The defeat of
the regular Arab armies in the 1948 war against Israel opened an era of
revolution in the Arab world. These armies, which had served their
countries' feudal and colonial regimes, were seen as bearing a large part
of the responsibility for the Palestinian catastrophe (naqba). The
revolutions brought to power the bearers of a new trend: parties of the
national bourgeoisie like the Syrian Baath and the Free Officers Movement
in Egypt. Under these new parties, too, however, the Arab armies suffered
defeat in 1967. The loss destroyed any faith among the Left that the Arab
national bourgeois could lead their people's fight in the confrontation
with Israel and bring about political and economic independence. The Arab
national program, as represented by Egyptian president Jamal Abed
al-Nasser, had failed. Despite the disillusionment, no wave of revolutions
followed the defeat of 1967. Far from it: the Arab national bourgeoisie
began a process of integration into the world capitalist system.
Gradually, national industries were pushed to the sidelines; the bourgeois
themselves became a comprador class, submissive to the dictates of global
financial institutions.

Foreign-policy steps marked the progress of integration. In 1972 Egypt
expelled its Soviet advisers. Seven years later its president, Anwar
Sadat, addressed the Israeli Knesset in Jerusalem; he then signed a peace
agreement with the Zionist state. In 1980 Iraq declared war on the Iranian
Revolution, serving (with America's support) as protector of the
reactionary Gulf Emirates. The process of integration reached its peak in
1990, after Iraq lost favor with the White House: most countries of the
Arab Middle East joined America in its war on Iraq. This was their way of
declaring allegiance to the new capitalist world order. An immediate
visible result was their acceptance of the American-led Madrid framework
for ending the Arab conflict with Israel.

What happened to transform the anti-colonial movements of 1948 into the
American puppets of the nineties? The answer lies in the nature of this
new bourgeoisie. It had accumulated its wealth from the apparatus of the
state. Its members had risen from the ranks of the middle class: army
officers, clerks, merchants, and professionals. These people did not
belong to the wealthy bourgeoisie, but their lot was much better than that
of the peasants or workers. In the late forties, they adopted nationalist
aspirations and slogans. They called for the liberation of Arab land, both
from colonialism and from Arab feudal overlords. They wanted to build
national economies, not merely to serve the interests of foreign
capitalists. The main symbols of these aspirations, the nationalization of
the Suez Canal and the construction of the Aswan Dam, were established in
the late 1950s by Jamal Abed al-Nasser. The aim of Nasser's reforms was
not only to build an independent national economy for Egypt, but also to
achieve Arab unity. Neither dream was to be realized.

Extracted from:
http://www.odaction.org/challenge/67/mis.html