Palestine: The Collapse of Oslo and Our Tasks

Roland Rance, 2 Feb 2002 The Collapse of Oslo

We are currently witnessing the complete and definitive collapse of the Oslo agreement between Israel and the PLO. The ISG has opposed this agreement from the start, arguing that it cannot bring peace and justice in Palestine, and is designed to recruit the Palestine Liberation Organisation as Israels agent in controlling the Palestinians living in the territories occupied by Israel in the course of the 1967 war, and in maintaining the division of the Palestinian people and of the Arabs as a whole. As we noted at the time, The agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation has been portrayed as a turning point in Middle East history. Indeed it is; but, far from being the first step in a process which will inevitably lead to full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, as has been argued even by some on the left, the agreement represents a significant defeat for the Palestinian masses the workers, peasants and refugees whose victories in the 5-year Intifada are now to be overturned by the Palestinian bourgeoisie and the external leadership of the PLO. . . It does not end the occupation, even in Gaza and Jericho; instead, it replaces direct with indirect Israeli rule and co-opts the PLO, which has effectively agreed to police the occupation on Israels behalf. We should take no pleasure in this vindication of our line. Over the past ten years, thousands of Palestinians and hundreds of Israelis have been killed, countless thousands have had their lives blighted, and the despoilation of Palestine has accelerated. The number of Israeli settlers in the 1967-occupied territories has doubled, while the Palestinians in the territories live under an ever-tightening economic and social siege. Palestinians have been largely excluded from the relatively-developed Israeli economy, being replaced by the million Russian immigrants over the past ten years, and huge but unknown numbers of overseas workers from China, Eastern Europe, Nigeria, Thailand and elsewhere. We did not foresee all of these developments. However, through our recognition of Oslo as a defeat, we were better placed than those with illusions in the peace process to expose and analyse them. We also, from the start of the process, pointed out the failure of the left forces, and the growth of political Islam in the resulting vacuum. The collapse of Oslo is a defeat for its protagonists. These include, in particular, the corrupt, co-opted and increasingly irrelevant Arafat regime, and the saner elements of the Israeli establishment represented by Peres. It is hard to see any way in which these forces can survive this defeat, and continue with their project of a client Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel, which will act as a bridgehead for the expansion of globalisation through the Middle East. Despite this defeat, there is little evidence of any advance for the working class. Indeed, it seems all too likely that it will instead we will see a veritable carnival of reaction. This results not merely from an unfavourable balance of forces and world situation; we need also to understand the failures of the left if we are to offer any way forward from the current barbarism. The Palestinian left has become virtually invisible and irrelevant. Since the camps war of the mid-1980s, when the PFLP dropped its historic slogan Revolution Until Victory in favour of the nationalist Unity Until Victory, both it and even more) the DFLP have tail-ended Arafats Fatah. Although the fronts played a key role in the early months of the first Intifada, they offered no alternative leadership or strategy, and were outflanked by Arafat. Many of their key leaders were won over or bought by Arafat. In the early 1970s, the DFLP, in particular, made a significant advance through its initial contacts with Israeli anti-Zionists, but they and the PFLP allowed this to be turned into a channel for negotiations with the Israeli government, rather than attempting to encourage a genuine revolutionary movement within Israel. Nor has the Palestinian left made any serious attempt to attract or mobilise the support of the international labour movement. These failures have been mirrored on the Israeli left, most of which has collapsed into the broader peace movement. The Israeli far left, which has always been marked by sectarianism, has consistently failed (and in some cases refused) to address seriously the issues of class, gender, ethnicity, religious coercion all of which could split Israeli society apart. Instead, they have focussed almost entirely on being the most effective builders of a largely western, middle-class peace movement. Further, through, in most cases, restricting themselves to organising among residents of the state of Israel, they have failed to make any impact on the huge numbers of Palestinians in the occupied territories who would be their natural constituency, and have reinforced the drive towards continued separation of the communities.

The international labour and solidarity movements, too, bear some responsibility for this situation. These have been known for often slavish support for the latest line of the PLO leadership, without troubling with any critical analysis. They too have failed to link the struggle for Palestinian liberation with other issues; and, crucially, there has been an utter failure to build active and practical solidarity with the forces on the ground in Palestine. In the light of these failures, and the collapse of the strategies which they embodied, it is necessary to reassert the basic issues in the conflict, and to work towards a new strategy for revolutionaries in the Middle East.

Imperialism in the Middle East

The Arab world has been divided by imperialism, in its own interests, into states with no material historical, geographical, economic or social basis. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during the first world war, Britain and France rushed to stake their claims in the Middle East. Having encouraged nationalist risings against the Turks, they then made it clear that they had no intention of honouring the promises which they made, nor even of observing US President Wilsons famous Nineteen Principles. This has served to dissociate the peoples of the region from its resources, and has fostered the development of local military or feudal leaderships with no local legitimacy and no reason to act in the interests of their subjects. Some of these states were established in order to limit the independence of potentially powerful neighbours. Thus Kuwait was established in order to deny sea access to Iraq, with its vast oil reserves; while Saudi Arabia was ringed by a chain of feudal monarchies with strong defence ties with Britain. Others, notably Lebanon, were established on a spurious religio-ethnic basis, in order to deepen the confessionalism of the Middle East and undermine the appeal of Arab unity. There can be no solution for the problems of the Arab world, including the many national minorities, in the framework of this division. The exploitation of the resources of the region for the benefit of the peoples of the region, and the free development of the national minorities, can only be achieved within the context of a united Middle east. This, and not any romantic support for the ideas of Arab nationalism, is why we call for the establishment of a socialist federation of the Middle East. This is not an abstract demand, but the necessary condition for the liberation of the peoples of the region, including the national minorities. Within this division of the Middle East, the state of Israel and the Zionist movement have played a key role. They have been the cutting edge of imperialist domination in the region. Unlike other regimes in the region, Israel has no option than a strategic alliance with imperialism. This strategic imperative is recognised by Israel. From the beginning, Zionist leaders sought an imperial sponsor; first Germany, then Britain, and since the 1940s the USA. It has offered its services, for which it has been well paid in economic, military and political means. It is as a result of this common strategic interest, and not through the fabled power of the Zionist lobby, that the USA supports Israel. This support includes military and economic aid to the value of over $5 billion every year. However, the belief in the power of this lobby is so useful to various interest groups that, if it did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent it. Israel has introduced a complicating factor into the Middle East patchwork. Not only has it been the unshakeable ally of imperialism, and a potential threat to any radical or popular regime in the area. The very existence of Israel, as a Jewish state, its dispossession of the Palestinians, and its aggression against other states has contributed towards diverting the resources of the region and distorting the economic and social development of the Middle East, has assisted in the formation of a cross-class national purpose in the Arab states, and has encouraged (sometimes deliberately) the growth of the forces of political Islam. Liberation in the Middle East thus requires the integration of Israeli Jews into the Arab world. Any approach based on the recognition and legitimation of Zionist separatism means a continuation of the present tendency towards ever-more-explicit apartheid. This integration will not be easy, and we need to pose a strategy for realising this.

Nation & Nationality

In discussing the future of the Israeli Jews, we are immediately faced with the question of whether they constitute a nation or national community and what their rights (and those of other national minorities) would be in a socialist federation of the Middle East

There has been a substantial quantity of mystification and sheer ignorance on the British left regarding this question. For instance, the Weekly Worker writes (24 January 2002) To demand a democratic, secular Palestine and leave it at that is completely insufficient. To effectively deny the right of the Israeli nation to exist would be to reverse the poles of oppression. In just one sentence, the CPGB manages to thoroughly confuse nation and state, Israelis and Jews, existence with right to existence. We need to disentangle these terms. However, although we have a clear position on the rights of nations, we have yet to come up with a satisfactory way of ascertaining what exactly constitutes a nation. The only attempt at an objective method is the checklist of characteristics, derived ultimately from Stalins definition of a nation as a historically evolved, stable community of language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a community of culture. This approach is both mechanistic and contradictory. Many examples can be cited of groups lacking one or more of these characteristics, which nevertheless can be considered nations. Furthermore, applying these very criteria, it is possible to conclude either that the Israeli Jews are a nation, or that they are not. The alternative method is purely subjective: a group that defines itself as a nation is a nation. This is almost a reverse application of the right to self-determination, and begs the question, which groups have the right or authority to make such a self-definition? We do not accept the right of any self-selected community (eg Croatian Serbs, Cornish, vegetarians) to define itself as a nation. Ultimately, this method is also contradictory, since we only accept the self-definition of those groups which we already recognise as nations. A full consideration of this question is outside the scope of this document; but it is clearly one on which we need to do more work. Our Welsh comrades have started some of this, and we need to develop it further. In the absence of agreed criteria, it is difficult to state with certainty that the Israeli Jews constitute, or do not constitute, a nation. It was possible, for a long period, to consider them as a nation in formation. However, developments over the past decade or so the huge inflow of Russian immigrants (many not recognised as Jews), the growing militancy and cultural assertiveness of the Israeli Jews of Middle Eastern origin (currently about 40% of the population), the escalating tensions between orthodox and secular Jews, and the pervasive influence of Americanisation and globalisation suggest that this process is going into reverse, and that we see now a process of national fragmentation taking place even before the full cohesion of a national community. The Zionist movement saw as one of its main tasks the formation of a Jewish nation from disparate parts. In this, it has had only limited success. In Israel, almost the only factor now differentiating Jews from non-Jews (ie, Palestinian Arabs) is the experience of being a privileged community, benefiting from the discriminatory nature of the state and at war with the Palestinians and other Arabs.

Zionism in theory and practice

Zionism is not simply a synonym for racism, or a convenient label for anything we dislike about Israel. According to one of its major historians, Zionism exists, and it has had important consequences (Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, 1959). It is an organised political trend, with an ideology, a programme, and political authority. Despite this, for some on the left this is in dispute. According to the AWL, The meaning of Zionism is not so clear. Usually it is taken to mean any sort of sympathy or identification with Israel, however critical in other words, the reflex response of most Jews worldwide (Two Nations, Two States, October 2001). This leads to the conclusion that anti-Zionism is not necessarily racist, but it is inescapably anti-semitic. It is impossible to understand the Israel-Palestine conflict without looking at Zionism; and there can be no resolution of the conflict that does not tackle the social disruption caused by Zionism. Zionism was indeed a response to the anti-Jewish pogroms and other outrages of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But we should note that it was a flawed response, starting from the assumption that racism against Jews was a natural and innate part of non-Jewish society. This understanding was common to all of the founders and ideologues of the Zionist movement, whose writings are replete with comments which can only be described as grossly racist towards the Jews. From this starting point, the Zionist movement drew the conclusion that the struggle against anti-Jewish racism was futile, and that the only response was that Jews should remove themselves from European society, and establish their own state in Palestine. In this, ironically, they found that their strongest allies were precisely those racists who also shared the goal of ridding Europe of its Jews.

For reasons that go beyond the scope of this document, I do not like the term antisemitism, and try to avoid its use. Instead, I prefer to speak of anti-Jewish racism, or racism against Jews

However, in its early years, and indeed until the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, Zionism only reflected the opinion of a small minority of Jews. It was denounced as blasphemous by the rabbis, as antisemitic by liberal Jews, and as a nationalist diversion by the socialists. From 1881, when the massive wave of pogroms was unleashed in Russia following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II, until the outbreak of World War I in 1914, about 1 million Jews fled the Russian empire. Of these, about 15,000 (just 1%) made their way to Palestine, and half of these left again within a year. It is a myth that Jews had a strong urge to emigrate to Palestine, and even at a time of tightening immigration controls and incipient racism, the overwhelming majority preferred to go to western Europe, the USA or Argentina. In the early years of British rule in Palestine, from 1917 on, the Jewish community (the Yishuv) grew both in size and strength. But, even following the rise of Nazism and the increasing difficulty in gaining visas for the west, most Jewish refugees ignored the appeals of the Zionists to settle in Palestine. Following the establishment of the state of Israel, the Zionist movement altered its focus. The enforced flight of 800,000 Palestinians from their homes, and the conquest of large areas of state-owned land, posed a dilemma for the government of the new state. Although it wished to use the land for the benefit of Jews, and to prevent the return of the refugees or the loss of the stolen land, it was reluctant to spell this out in explicitly racist laws. Consequently, in 1952 Israel passed the World Zionist Organisation Jewish Agency Status Law, and in 1953 the Jewish National Fund Law, which gave statutory powers to the institutions of the World Zionist Organisation. These bodies, registered as charities in the west, had constitutions which bound them to use their funds for the benefit of Jews alone. By virtue of the laws and the subsequent covenant between the state of Israel and these bodies, it has been possible to ensure that the majority of the land (over 90%) is available for Jews only, that welfare benefits, schools, hospitals, paved roads, sewage and other essential services are provided for Jews but not for Arabs, and that an entire structure of apartheid has been built up, without the need for any explicitly discriminatory laws. The whole process has been so complex, and deliberately veiled in a mass of legal verbiage, to the extent that Israel has been able to deny that it discriminates between citizens on the basis of race or religion, and challenges to this are dismissed as legalistic or pedantic. Israel defines itself, in its Basic Laws, as the state of the Jewish people. This means, not only that non-Jews resident and born in the state can never be equal citizens with those recognised as Jews, but that Jews across the world, even if they are not citizens of Israel and have no intention of living there, have potentially a greater say than no-Jewish citizens not to mention the Palestinian refugees. It is not legal to stand for election in Israel on a platform of changing this definition, or its consequences. This discriminatory structure needs to be removed in its entirety. This is what is meant by the call for the dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel. It is not, as Zionists and their apologists claim, a call for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews or for the banning of particular ideas, but a basic democratic demand.

Two states?
Can the rights of both Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews be ensured, and can we move towards a revolutionary transformation in the Middle East, through the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel? Many on the left argue that this is possible, indeed necessary. Citing the decades of conflict, the history of European racism and the Nazi holocaust, they argue that Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are incapable of living in a common state. They therefore support the demand of the PLO leadership, and of parts of the Israeli peace movement, for the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel. Some go even further, adopting the explicitly apartheid slogan of Two states for two peoples the logic of which is removal of Palestinians from the Jewish state, and Jews from the Palestinian state. Against this, we argue that a further partition would perpetuate the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, would reinforce the national consensus of both communities, and would undermine the possibility of any development of class unity. We recognise that the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state will necessarily act against a revolutionary transformation of the region, while there is no logic for its existence in any other form. A two-state approach, even in its most generous application, with a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, would still leave unresolved key questions. Without recognising the right of return for the millions of Palestinian refugees, and establishing mechanisms for this to take place, there is no chance of a lasting solution. Nor is there any possibility of their large-scale resettlement in the relatively arid and unfertile West Bank. Other issues, too in particular, the use of scarce water resources could only be addressed on a Palestine-wide, if not regional, basis. Additionally, any demand for the removal of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories would be met by an Israeli demand for transfer the expulsion of Palestinian citizens from the state of Israel. Indeed, this seems to be the logic of the Two states for two peoples demand.

Recently, a group of right-wing army officers in Israel has called for the gerrymandering of the electoral system to prevent the election of Palestinians to the Knesset, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in Jordan. Sharon himself has long subscribed to this strategy, which was part of the logic for the 1982 invasion of Lebanon under his command. In essence, there is little to distinguish this from the separation proposals coming from the left; the only difference is the precise location of the border. Our solution is through the establishment of a socialist federation of the Middle East. Within this context, we support the demand for a unitary, democratic and secular Palestine. We argue that the Palestinian and Arab bourgeoisie has failed to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution, which in Europe included the democratisation and secularisation of society. Thus, the demands for democracy and secularism, which come from the working class against the various feudal and military regimes, have a permanent revolutionary nature in the Middle East. A democratic and unitary Palestine would pose a serious threat to the existing regimes in the region. It is unlikely that it could be established except in the context of a revolutionary upsurge through the Arab east. We should support this demand, while making clear in our propaganda that this is not counter to, but part of, the creation of a socialist federation. We should call for a constituent assembly of the people of Palestine those residing there now, whatever their ethnic origin, and those prevented from living there as a result of the establishment of the state of Israel and its expulsions. We should attempt to establish links with those groups and individuals raising this demand in Palestine and Israel.

The Palestine solidarity movement

There are currently at least three important solidarity groups in Britain. They have different origins and priorities, and sometimes attempt to work together. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) was established in 1982. Unlike predecessors, it was able to steer clear of sectarian identification with any one political group. In the early years, it had several Palestinian members close to the Palestinian left. However, particularly since the civil war in the Palestinian refugee camps in 1984-5, PSC has followed closely the line of the PLO leadership. PSC supported the Oslo agreement, and in the 1994 or 1995 it dropped opposition to Zionism and to imperialism from its aims. This led to the resignation of a large part of the organisation, including several key activists. PSC has also consistently refused to mobilise practical and financial support for independent Palestinian organisations, insisting that any such support had to go through the official PLO channels. Since the establishment of the Palestine authority as Israels agent in the occupied territories, such support has in effect reinforced the occupation. Nevertheless, PSC has continued to function as a serious propaganda and campaigning organisation, with several groups around Britain. PSC is very cautious about supporting or identifying with other liberation struggles or mass campaigns. The Campaign for Palestinian Rights (CPR) was set up, principally by the SWP, following the start of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000. It is nominally a membership organisation, though it also seeks labour movement affiliations. The main differences with PSC seem to be the active involvement of the SWP, and a political analysis which sees the Palestinian struggle as an integral part of the anti-globalisation movement. These do not seem sufficient reasons to establish a separate organisation, and the suspicion must be that the SWP wanted to have its own organisation, rather than contributing to building and changing the existing PSC. Decision-making processes in the CPR are far from transparent, and there seems to be an emphasis on getting the job done, rather than discussing the politics and agreeing a line. Relations between the campaigns have been relatively cordial, with PSC representatives attending CPR planning meetings, and each group providing speaking platforms for the other. However, the separate existence of these two campaigns can only weaken the solidarity movement. The Palestine Right to Return Coalition (Al-Awda) is an international, internet-based campaign, mainly of Palestinians, focussing on the centrality of the refugees and their demand to return. As such, it is independent of, and frequently in opposition to, the PLO leadership and the PA. It has a particularly complex structure, with decisions being made by internet voting of its thousands of members, and local committees answerable to an

Even this position is too moderate for some Zionists. Herut, the political party of Begin, still has as its symbol a map of Palestine and Transjordan, with a hand brandishing a rifle over the river Jordan, and the caption Only Thus. The partys official anthem proclaims The river Jordan has two banks. One of them is ours. The other one is ours too.

international leadership appointed by an internet election. In Britain, Al-Awda has organised a number of very large demonstrations. Before the establishment of the CPR, Al-Awda filled the vacuum left by the failure of PSC to organise effective solidarity action. However, by its very nature, Al-Awda can never involve large numbers of activists in Britain, and they could not determine its positions. Despite this, it is an important group, which also works closely with the CPR and PSC. There are also several smaller, more focussed, campaigning groups. We should note particularly the Campaign for Freedom for Samar and Jawad, which works for the release of the Palestinians framed for bomb attacks in London in 1994, and the Boycott Israel Goods (BIG) campaign, whose name is self-explanatory.

Solidarity tasks
We need to rebuild an active and campaigning, labour-movement based solidarity movement. We should support initiatives of all of the existing groups, unless they directly contradict our positions. Eg, we should not support a demo in support of the Oslo process, or one explicitly calling for two states. However, where appropriate we should be there giving out our own dissenting leaflets. We should support any initiative to unite the current groups. If this is successful, we should consider allocating further resources to fuller participation in the resulting campaign. It is essential to take our demands into the labour movement. We should be calling for direct links between unions, womens groups, community associations etc. This requires the organisation of delegations to Palestine, who can meet their counterparts there and will become the most committed and effective campaigners here. We must work towards providing practical material support for groups and campaigns in Palestine organising independently of the PLO and the PA. The initiative of the Labour Party of Pakistan and the Scottish Socialist Party in establishing the Afghan Workers Solidarity Fund may provide a useful model here. We should campaign around these immediate demands End the Occupation! immediate, total and unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the territories occupied in 1967. No return, no justice! implementation of the right of all Palestinians excluded from their homes and land to return and to compensation. End Zionist racism! dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel. Rebuild Palestine! for massive material aid to rebuild Palestinian communities and infrastructure. End arms sales to Israel (and arms purchases from Israel). Boycott Israeli goods, services and tourism.

Palestine Tasks
Roland Rance, 8 March 2002 The greater urgency of the situation since this document was written, and the sheer scale of the daily slaughter, call for an increased prioritisation of work around Palestine. Every comrade and branch should take part in mobilisations and activity on the issue of Palestine. Comrades should raise immediate demands within their unions, in addition to explaining our analysis that the conflict cannot be resolved through partition, and without challenging Zionism. Every branch should discuss Palestine in the context of its tasks following conference, and should allocate resources appropriately. The decision to take an active role in building a local campaign, and within which solidarity group, will depend on local circumstances. We should support any initiative to unite the current groups, with the aim of rebuilding an active and campaigning, labour-movement based solidarity campaign. If this is successful, we should consider allocating further resources, nationally as well as locally, to the resulting campaign. The immediate demand of this work must be End the Occupation! ie immediate, total and unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the territories occupied in 1967. This demand is now so urgent, and the need to end the daily brutality and carnage so pressing, that we should work with any groups or individuals raising this demand (unless, of course, they do so with a racist, particularly anti-Jewish, message). Other immediate demands should be for an end arms sales to Israel (and arms purchases from Israel), and for a boycott of Israeli goods, services and tourism. We should additionally support the campaigns and initiatives of all of the existing groups, unless they directly contradict our positions. Eg, we should not support a demo supporting the Oslo process, or one explicitly calling for two states. However, where appropriate we should be there giving out our own dissenting leaflets. It is essential to take our demands into the labour movement. We should be calling for direct links between unions, womens groups, community associations etc. This requires the organisation of delegations to Palestine, who can meet their counterparts there and will become the most committed and effective campaigners here. We must work towards providing practical material support for groups and campaigns in Palestine organising independently of the PLO and the PA. The initiative of the LPP and SSP in establishing the Afghan Workers Solidarity Fund. May provide a useful model here. We should also support the growing soldiers resistance movement in Israel. Reservists sentenced to prison lose all income, and this is often used to put pressure on them, through the suffering of their families. In particular, where imprisoned reservists are members of unions, or work in particular professions, we should use this to call for support for them in equivalent bodies in this country. In our propaganda on the issue, we must place the conflict in the context of the imperialist strategy in the Middle East. We should explain why we reject the idea that this context can be resolved through the continued partition of Palestine and the Palestinian people, the logic of which is a further push towards apartheid. We should raise also the demands: No return, no justice! implementation of the right of all Palestinians excluded from their homes and land to return and to compensation. End Zionist racism! dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel. Rebuild Palestine! for massive material aid to rebuild Palestinian communities and infrastructure.

In addition to work around the occupation in general, we should be supporting specific campaigns where possible. For instance, we should support, and raise the demands of, the campaign for Freedom and Justice for Samar and Jawad. Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh are two Palestinian left activists framed for the bombing of the Israeli Embassy and Zionist HQ in London in 1994. Their conviction, and long sentences, are reminiscent of several other notorious miscarriages of justice in Britain, particularly the use of Public Interest Immunity Certificates to suppress intelligence information which should lead to their acquittal. We should also support the Campaign to Free Vanunu, bearing in mind that although kidnapped in Rome, Mordechai Vanunu was the victim of a criminal conspiracy in Britain to lure him into the hands of the Israeli authorities. Conference should also agree to continue the discussion around our programmatic position, and should call on the incoming Central Committee to establish a small working group to organise and coordinate this.