Abraham Weizfeld on Sat 06, June 2009 @ 04:48

Abraham Weizfeld — 2009-06-06 04:48:40

A suitable analysis of the failure of the Zionist State. A precise proposal for national-cultural autonomy of mine demonstrates the futility of any State and calls for a no-State solution. Otherwise know as a Confederation, such a proposal owes more to Proudhon than to Marx and his whole crew. Permanent Revolution also means the end of the bourgeois State, although Bronstein did not seem to be conscious of that.

JPLO (Jewish People's Liberation Organization)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JPLO-OLPJ

Gary on Sat 06, June 2009 @ 21:05

Gary — 2009-06-06 21:05:46

Excellent article.

As a long time observer of the Israel/Palestinian-Arab conflict, I am convinced that the end result will be one state between the Jordan River and the Med. even if it is preceded by two states.

Michael FitzGerald on Sun 07, June 2009 @ 19:59

Michael FitzGerald — 2009-06-07 19:59:11

Revolutionary socialists tend to be chary of bourgeois solutions. That is your right, of course. But this article rather one-sidedly highlights the catastrophic potential in Israeli-Palestinian relations while downplaying the scope for more positive political development. I mean positive in the sense that it would make many people's lives more bearable.

It won't be long before Netanyahu and Likud line up behind the two state solution. That will enable Livni and Kadima to join the governing coalition and reduce Netanyahu's reliance on Lieberman and parties further to the right. And even if Kadima doesn’t join the government, they will exert powerful pressure on it to seal a deal.

And we know more or less what the deal will consist of. In that regard, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very like the Northern Ireland conflict. Just as Sunningdale (1974) contained the essentials of the Good Friday Agreement (1998)--power-sharing with a Southern dimension--the deal that the Palestinians will sign up to will be based, more or less, on the Clinton parameters outlined at Camp David in 1999. You can consult these in detail here:

http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm

Broadly, Israel will retreat to its pre-1967 borders, retaining West Jerusalem and a small area to the South East of Jerusalem. In exchange it will cede a strip of land connecting Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians' right of return will be acknowledged but in a very limited way and few if any Palestinians will be allowed to return to land they lost in pre-1967 Israel. (The West Bank is a different matter.) The Israeli right of return will be defended much more comprehensively, though it’s not inconceivable that a cap will be placed on Jewish immigration into Israel.

Palestinians then will not achieve statehood in the full sense. What they’ll be offered will be closer to dominion status, just like Ireland in 1923. There’ll be severe restrictions on the use and procurement of arms but the new state might be able to get its electricity and water from Jordan or Egypt rather than Israel thereby reducing the risk of Israeli blockades.

Hamas is a fractured movement but when push comes to shove it’s basically open to a deal along the lines I’ve set out. Haniyeh is a pure pragmatist. Even Khaled Meshaal has recently reiterated his commitment to the 2006 agreements Hamas concluded with Fatah. (His real beef is with recognizing Israel – but he’s willing to get on the two state train, that aside. At the risk of overdoing the Irish analogy, think De Valera 1926. “When I take this oath I am not taking an oath…” He's deceiving himself for the sake of his followers, very like De Valera.) Hamas is agitating for the release of Marwan Bhargouti. If successful, Barghouti would be well placed to oust Abbas and take over the leadership of Fatah and reforge a Fatah-Hamas alliance. There are interviews with Barghouti on Israeli TV all the time. Israelis and Palestinians see him as a possible successor to Arafat.

Poll after poll shows that a majority on both sides wants a two state solution – yes, even after Gaza. So, pace Keith, it’s got lots of credibility. The problem of the settlers is going to be difficult for the Israeli state. But as Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza showed, the settlers can be faced down by the IDF. Some of them may indeed go to war with the IDF. But they’ll lose, just as Hamas lost last December. And for the majority of Israelis when the question is, in effect, “What do you fear more, a confrontation with the settlers, or a world without America?” they’ll say the second.

The benefits of a two state solution to Israel are obvious and immense. As the article rightly points out, Israel has far more to gain from it than the Palestinians: a large Jewish majority (80%) with a sizeable (20%) Arab minority. The Camp David Accords of 1978 did not bring about a normalization of relations between Israel and Egypt. Trade between the two countries is minimal. But if the Arab League throws its weight behind the new deal, Israel will normalize its relations with all its neighbours. In a new Middle East Free Trade Area, as the most dynamic economy it will clean up. (I agree with Gary’s comment above, though, that there may well be a unified state comprising Jordan, Palestine and Israel at some point in the not too distant future.) Free trade will protect the Palestinians too. Israel will acquire powerful trade incentives not to do to the new state what they did to Gaza last year.

So what will the Palestinians get? Well, for the first time since 1948, at least 4m of them will get a functioning state and a homeland with internationally-recognized and internationally-protected borders. There will be a lot of Palestinian losers too of course. Refugee camps will be closed and they will be assimilated into neighbouring states. Most Israeli Arabs will stay in Israel; polls suggest that about 70% of them would not consider going to live in a new Palestinian state. (Doubtless that is one reason why Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza do not consider Israeli Arabs as Palestinians).

Syria wants this (provided they get the Golan heights back), Lebanon wants this, Egypt wants this, Saudi Arabia wants this. And last but by no means least America now wants this.

Far from being devoid of credibility, the two state solution as outlined here is much more likely than the doomy predictions in Keith Harvey’s article. When revolutionary socialists talk about ‘forced population transfers’, endless brutal war and Zionist intransigence, they are in their comfort zone. But the world is changing and the past is not always the best guide to the future. The window on the two state solution may be closing but Obama gave it a mighty jolt in Cairo. And yet again, events could well leave revolutionary socialists behind.

Gerry Downing on Sat 20, June 2009 @ 05:35

Gerry Downing — 2009-06-20 05:35:56

I found the article solid and based on real developments, so providing scope for Trotskyism to put forward their programme. It came in the final lines, basically correct but too brief and undeveloped to be of much use. Surely the two nations solution is now clearly a reactionary Zionist project, involving ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and a bantustan with no real autonomy, let alone a sovereign nation state. So we need democratic demands, as the piece points out, but does not develop. For the overthrow of the Zionist state and a bi-national workers state seems to me to be the only political slogan conpatible with permanent revolution. And equally the secular democratic state of Palestine ignores the Jewish nation and their rights as a nation post revolution, implying ethnic cleansing of Jews by a arab/palestinian bourgeoisie. SUCH A PERSPECTIVE WOULD NOT WIN ANY jEWISH WORKERS OR INTELLECTUALS