On the Palestinian Question (formerly, SWP etc)

["Mohammad J Alam" <alam.m@xxxxxxx>]

Counterposing the one-state and two-state demands to one another in a
formulaic manner is akin to examining two pieces of rotten fruit as the
flies hover about.

The question of Palestinian land, territorial contiguity, sovererignty, and
right of residency is inseparable from the history of looting and plunder
conducted by its colonizers. Some statistics are necessary:

Before 1948, Zionists own 7% of Palestine. The mandate of 1947 alots them
55% of Palestine. They set out to conquer more and end up with 78%. In 1967
they grab 100% of Palestine.

The two-state solution puts forth the 'bold' demand of giving the aggrieved
party a mass total of 22% of stolen land. This does not even begin to
account for demographic growth, the expulsion of Palestinian refugees, or a
viable state faced with an Israeli Goliath. The demand to withdraw from the
Occupied Territories should be a *minimum* and *immediate* demand, not an
end goal. The SJP has linked this demand with right of return, right to
resist, dismantling of all settlements, etc. This is a starting point.

But what of the one-state position? Calling for the dismantling of the
Jewish character of the Israeli state and unification on all of
British-mandated Palestine only appears bold on the surface. It is
apparently forgotten that the Palestinians are not asking to share a state
with their occupiers, but for an independent national entity, with full
rights. The 400,000 Jewish settlers will not dissolve into thin air to make
way for the millions of Palestinian refugees.

An important note: a demographic assessment of where most Palestinian
villages stood shows that it is in fact possible for most Palestinians to
return to their homes without significantly altering the Jewish character
of Israel and even the settlements. That the Israeli government knows this
full well and still prevents right of return only shows their total
rejectionist outset.

In my opinion the emphasis of American activists on the Palestinian
question should be on the minumum legal-democratic demands. Not because
they are just demands, but because *the future geographical character of
the entire Middle East will be determined not by SWP documents but by war*.
To talk of dismantling Israel is anathema to any possibly receptive
American ear. Why sound off this call aimlessly, other than to strike
revolutionary poses?

The fact of the matter is that the current borders have been determined by
war, and that Israeli plans for ethnic cleansing, a rejuvenated Intifada,
or a mass upheaval in Arab states will be the real determinants of future
shifts in borders. Who really denies that at least one, if not all three of
these events, are in the cards? Would it not be appropriate to form a
strong Marxist current given the emergence of any of these events? To build
strategies around them, and form solidarity with any embryonic signs of
struggle and movement on these questions? To organize a wide exposure?

To debate one-state vs. two-state on the theoretical level, ie. why the
second position is incomplete and unattainable without radical change, is
one matter. But to debate the two concepts on a political plane that rests
above the concrete situation is sterile. No one thinks that the radical
momentum building among the Arab masses is primarily concerned with
fighting for some sort of 'unified', pre-1948, polluted and occupied
Palestine either. That other party which is supposedly to be involved in
this delicious one-state enterprise will sooner drop 100 nuclear bomb on
Cairo and Damascus than accede. In other words, there is a great deal of
political, military, and class upheaval to be had before drawing up
grandiose plans of the territorial nature of Palestine on a Marxist basis.

Given that Israeli is a colonial-settler state, given that there is no room
in a sane mind for talk of an Israeli "proletarian revolution", given that
Israeli citizens will continue to support ethnic cleansing out of a fear
for survival, we have to recognize the altered class dynamics of this
conflict. This conflict is not only a class conflict but a national
conflict; in fact it is a class conflict molded under the influence of and
appearing under the guise of a decidedly national outlook. Imperialism
distorts class conflict, and in the case of its most intensified current
form, class conflict has been reflected in the form of a possible mass
militant Arab movement in violent opposition to both domestic colonial
puppets and a powerful colonial enterprise with no "motherland" to scurry
off to.

Can it be otherwise? In 1948, the so-called Arab "invasion", led by
hampered, colonized 'armies' consisting of irregulars, with each quisling
Arab 'leader' failing to unite his forces, allowed Zionist expansionism and
conquest. For this crime many of these regimes were overthrown. Then in the
next period, equipped with socialist-oriented nationalism and Soviet
support, the Arab armies were preemptively annihilated twice--in 1956 and
1967. A modicum of respect was regained in 1973. Today, the colonial kings
are so impotent they cannot even pretend to carry out a war. Today, the
USSR is dead and official Arab armies are ancient and outdated. Thus the
last line of defense against Zionist expansion--the only line that is
within the sphere of the revolutionary class--is being mobilized, in the
Intifada and in public demonstrations. I believe this should be our primary
focus of attention for revolutionary change; reaching this group with
socialist ideas and pushing aside Islamists is an important task for
Marxists when and where possible.




~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.