[Marxism] Israel: imperialist or not (an exchange)

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The submission of my piece on the Barnes Open Letter has sparked a
useful exchange on the SWP-USA list, on the issue of whether Israel is
imperialist.(I guess people who are not on the Socialist Voice list
want to see my original contribution completely can  go to the SWP-USA
lists website (which requires joining Yahoo but nothing else).
 
In my letter on the Barnes Open Letter, I wrote:
 
" Personally, I don't think Israel is imperialist. It is a dependency
and
extension of imperialism -- a settler colonial state -- but far too
dependent on imperialism to represent an imperialist ruling class in its
own right. A settler colonial state massivelty fuinded by US and German
imperialism, including the Zionist movement.
Israel is not imperialist, but one of the most deeply and entirely
dependent countries in the history of the world. It simply does not
exist without US,
German, Zionist and other forms of imperialist funding."
 
Phil Ferguson responded as follows:
Israel: imperialist or not
 
I think Barnes' new position on Israel, that it is not imperialist, is -
frankly - daft.

Although Fred has a point that Israel is a dependent country in the
sense of being dependent on the US and Zionism internationally, its
"dependence" is fundamentally/qualitatively different from dependence in
the Marxist sense of the word.

At the end of the day, every small imperialist country is "dependent" on
the US. But that doesn't mean junior imperialists, whether NZ or
Israel, aren't still imperialist.

Israel is not an oppressed nation; it is a highly-developed capitalist
country built on the national oppression of the Palestinians and which
can only be maintained by continuing that oppression.

The best term to describe this is still *imperialist*, in the same way
that South Africa was best described as imperialist during the apartheid
era, although it was a unique form of imperialism because it contained
within it a mass of people who were exploited and oppressed like a
colony.

If Israel were not imperialist, then the logical political consequence
would be to give some credence to the idea of a two-state "solution" to
the Palestinian question.

So I think it is better to view imperialism as having several different
forms, or sub-forms, depending on specific circumstances, rather than to
start saying that some of these are imperialist and some, like Israel,
aren't.

Certainly, if the world is still divided into oppressor and oppressed
nations, and that distinction is vital to the imperialist epoch - as
Lenin suggested - then, whatever its oddities or specificities, Israel
is imperialist.

And, if the Barnesites develop a mantra that Israel is not imperialist,
it will be interesting to see if they follow that theoretical position
through into practical politics.

And I responded as follows (slightly edited)
 
 
RE: Israel: imperialist or not 
I  think Israel's dependency is unique.  It is certainly not like the
dependency of
semicolonial countries (subjected to unfavorable terms of trade,
extraction and export of their wealth and son --l in some ways has the
most favorable terms of trade with imperialism that any country has had
or can ever have.)  Also, I think its dependency has no comparison to
the
dependency of the other imperialists on US imperialism. For example I
don't think the military of France, Japan, Germany is entirely
maintained by gifts from the United States.

Lenin never directly equated imperialism and oppressor nations, as far
as I recall -- although clearly all the imperialist nations were
oppressor nations.. He also did not
have to deal with either Israel or South Africa, except in the instance
of the Boer war, where he clearly did not regard the profoundly racist
Orange Free State as imperialist.  In the case of South
Africa -- where there was a solider case for imperialist development in
my opinion, although I didn't find it convincing -- we have to ask: has
an imperialist economic structure vanished with the end of apartheid.
Was South African imperialism simply another term for apartheid and
racial oppression and exploitation in the apartheid form?  (Remember,
these were central to the society before apartheid.)

In the case of Israel, I think this state is exactly what it looks
like-- a settler colonial state established with imperialist sponsorship
and maintained by imperialist support -- much more of an implant from
the outside than South Africa was (where the colonial implantation took
root hundreds of years before and the development was more organic out
of a class struggle between oppressors and oppressed people who became,
over a long time, a nation).

The apartheid structure was not equal to imperialism. Personally, I
tend to see the big capital of South Africa as an extension of British
and US imperialism (probably much more the former than the latter).
Although it is protected by the South African government, I believe its
fundamental
roots and sources of protection are abroad.

Israel is there to do a job. To accomplish that, world imperialism pays
for a structure that is a simulacrum of an imperialist social structure
-- that is Israel regularly recieves a rather significant portion of the
wealth that US (and other) imperialisms extract from working people
around the world
Israel's job is to be at war with its neighbors. The limits of Israeli
independence are actually quite narrow, as the panic over the failure to
carry out the job they were paid to do in Lebanon highlights. Their
national interests are 
set in concrete by their basis in the dispossession of the Palestinians,
and these can differ with 
Washington's -- within a narrow scope that has little in common with a
genuine imperialist power's pursuit of its interests.

Israel is not a puppet and it is certainly not an exploited society --
except to the extent that its people serve as lifelong cannon fodder.
It is an oppressor nation through and through and uniquely dependent
because its existence is dependent ultimately not on producing
superprofits for capital at home and abroad, but on terrorizing itts
neighbors with a powerful military machine.
 
 To my knowledge noone thought Israel was imperialist in 1948 or even in
1956. This was a product of the victory in the 1967 war (at least it was
after the war that the characterization of Israel (and South Africa)
emerged in the SWP. I think this
victory led to exaggerations of the possible development of Israel into
a significant imperialist power in the region, the growth of finance
capital, and so on. I think in the development of things, these
propects were not fulfilled and Israel's extraordinary and unique
dependency on imperialism became underrated, and its ability to pursue a
completely independent policy in the region was exaggerated. In reality,
if there was such a possibility, the struggle of the Palestinian people
has successfully blocked it. Israeli big capital has not been able to
become an independent finance capital.

Of course, there is big Israeli capital but I think it counts for far,
far less as an independent finance capital than South Africa or even
Iceland -- to cite a Barnesian Most Favored Nation.
Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: swp_usa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/swp_usa/post?postID=STnLl_--UiS7BEbSlZ4Od
SA5n5o_jcCd303JUzmci3fgJfxGfuRQ4Dk0f87ZmiVa45WbcTvvdE_Cpq2M-w>
[mailto:swp_usa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/swp_usa/post?postID=STnLl_--UiS7BEbSlZ4Od
SA5n5o_jcCd303JUzmci3fgJfxGfuRQ4Dk0f87ZmiVa45WbcTvvdE_Cpq2M-w> ] On
Behalf
Of Philip Ferguson
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:07 PM
To: swp_usa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/swp_usa/post?postID=STnLl_--UiS7BEbSlZ4Od
SA5n5o_jcCd303JUzmci3fgJfxGfuRQ4Dk0f87ZmiVa45WbcTvvdE_Cpq2M-w> 
Subject: [swp_usa] Israel: imperialist or not



I think Barnes' new position on Israel, that it is not imperialist, is -
frankly - daft.

Although Fred has a point that Israel is a dependent country in the
sense of being dependent on the US and Zionism internationally, its
"dependence" is fundamentally/qualitatively different from dependence in
the Marxist sense of the word.

At the end of the day, every small imperialist country is "dependent" on
the US. But that doesn't mean junior imperialists, whether NZ or
Israel, aren't still imperialist.

Israel is not an oppressed nation; it is a highly-developed capitalist
country built on the national oppression of the Palestinians and which
can only be maintained by continuing that oppression.

The best term to describe this is still *imperialist*, in the same way
that South Africa was best described as imperialist during the apartheid
era, although it was a unique form of imperialism because it contained
within it a mass of people who were exploited and oppressed like a
colony.

If Israel were not imperialist, then the logical political consequence
would be to give some credence to the idea of a two-state "solution" to
the Palestinian question.

So I think it is better to view imperialism as having several different
forms, or sub-forms, depending on specific circumstances, rather than to
start saying that some of these are imperialist and some, like Israel,
aren't.

Certainly, if the world is still divided into oppressor and oppressed
nations, and that distinction is vital to the imperialist epoch - as
Lenin suggested - then, whatever its oddities or specificities, Israel
is imperialist.

And, if the Barnesites develop a mantra that Israel is not imperialist,
it will be interesting to see if they follow that theoretical position
through into practical politics.



 
<http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=4277
&partner=hbtools> Upgrade Your Email - Click here! 

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism