What Does This Mean, If Anything?

After quite a bit of trepidation, I have decided to put the following account of a recent Tel Aviv meeting (December 27, 1997) on the net. My doubts on this score stem from my being quite subjective about the meeting which I moderated (due to Prof. Benyamin Cohen’s illness) and my tendency to wax optimistic over any positive indicator.
Now, for some facts. The Israeli Committee to Mark the 150th Anniversary of the publication of the Communist Manifesto (in 1848) came into existence last spring. The establishment of the committee was a direct response to an initiative in Paris. This initiative, bearing the rather intriguing name, EspacesMarx, was the joint project of all the main forces in the French left: Socialists, Communists and Trotskyists and many independent intellectuals. EspacesMarx called for the creation of local, national committees all over the globe; tens of such committees are already in operation in an interesting expression of some sort of “Marxist globlalization.” The guiding spirit in the Israeli committee, from its very inception, has been Prof. Benyamin Cohen, professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University.
A detailed, official summary of its activities will, no doubt, be issued in the near future. Here, let me mention that the Committee has inspired the coming publication of a new Hebrew edition of the Communist Manifesto, with a specially written new introduction by Prof. Eric Hobsbawm. The meeting under review here was the first public activity by the Committee.
Ahad Ha’am #70 Was Packed
For the record it is important to note that we had a good panel of speakers. Tzvi Tauber and Moshe Zuckerman from Tel Aviv University, MK Tamar Gozanski, Dr.Walid Salim, a member of the Palestinian affiliate of Espaces Marx, and Michael Lowy, from Paris, representing the EspacesMarx Secretariat. Certainly, when all is said and done, it is the content of the various interventions which is of critical importance. But alas, this is simply not the occasion for such an evaluation, and it would be unfair to do it without benefit of written texts. I do have the feeling, though, that the day is not too far off when we will have a renewed dialogue between Marxists – here in Israel.
A rather significant aspect of this meeting was the presence of 150 participants, representing two major age groups. It is common knowledge that we often have to note the very high average age of those in attendance at meetings of the left. This time, you would have to relate to two average ages, because there were at least 50 people in the audience who could be considered of student age (which is slightly older in this country than abroad).
I may be “over” analyzing a minor event, but I think that the number of participants and their age stemmed from (1) the presence of lecturers from Tel Aviv U. who identify with the continuing importance of Marx and the Manifesto; (2) the intense class and social struggles in Israel during the month of December: a) the general strike at the beginning of the month; b), the outcry and struggle over unemployment symbolized by the situation in the development town, Ofakim and c) the battle to defend the public health system and the criticism of the proposed budget [which, incidentally, is still going on]; (3) It may well be that the current rumblings in the international capitalist economy have generated new interest in social(ist) criticism.
At any rate, the existence of a well-attended meeting of this kind in Tel Aviv is a breath of fresh air. Moreover, the amicable presence of Marxists from different, “clashing” points of view seems to suggest the slogan for 1998: “Marxists of all schools and approaches, unite in a dialogue of mutual respect, for unity in diversity: you have nothing to lose but your (our) state of marginalization.”

The Lebanon Discussion in Israeli Society and in the Israeli Peace Movement

Israeli losses in Lebanon have created pressure on the government and other advocates of the IDF presence in the misnamed “security zone.” The pressure has even served as the background for the development of new forms of protest by women, especially mothers of soldiers serving in Lebanon. Public opinion is thus divided along two sharp lines: those supporting a unilateral withdrawal and those defending the status quo.The lines of the argument are clear and revolve around the question as to whether the said retreat will encourage the Hezbollah to utilize the tactical advantages stemming from the IDF retreat in order to launch bigger and better attacks on the Israeli communities in the north.
A Number of General Considerations
The current discussion, with its narrow tactical focus, leads to some sort of built-in draw. The whole argument of “what will the Syrians do” and “what will the Hizballah do” is based on the premise that the Lebanese issue can be treated in isolation from the battle to overcome the historical roots of Israeli strategic thinking as part of the struggle for an Israeli policy that can lead to a comprehensive peace.
I The Israeli Presence in Lebanon
The propensity to disregard the importance of Arab sovereignty over Arab land.This not a totally decisive element, especially when our opponents talk in militar-technical terms. But certainly, given a need to choose between options, it is certainly important to state that the flippant attitude that denies that this is a problem is part and parcel of the conservative thought patterns the are blind to options asides from military response.
This kind of shallowness refuses to see the dangers involved in intervention in the internal affairs of Lebanon. Almost a thousand Israli deaths can be ascribed to the dangerous conception that Israel can determine the composition of the government in Beirut. Isn’t the TSADAL combination one of the remnants of this dangerous conception. Will we end up in another war in Lebanon to defend our defenders? Is it strange that Tsadal has political clout in the present discussion on the side of the status quo?Why Not A Negotiated Withdrawal?
The policies of the Netanyahu government are the main reason that a negotiated withdrawal (and its advantages) is not on the agenda.
1. Syria is important, but we all agree that the stalemate in the Syrian-Israeli relations stems from Israel’s intransigence regarding both the tactical question “from where to resume the negotiations” and the central question: illusions that Israel can have peace while keeping the Golan. Israel can demand and receive important security arrangments that will prevent the use of the Golan against it.
2. No serious efforts were ever made in the diplomatic field to reach a negotiated settlement on withdrawal with the Hizballa – because of the hollow slogans that you cannot negotiate with terrorists.
In these circumstances, the present war in Lebanon is a continuation of the optional war that serves as its background. It is totally illogical to oppose the Netanyahu government which bears major responsibility for the suffocation of the peace process on all major fronts and ask the dove constitu
It is illogical to the point of being immoral to back Netanyahu in Lebanon, because his policies have created an overall stalemate that appears to have no solution.
Therefore,
Noting the negative effect of the policies of the Netanyahu government in creating a stalemate in the entire peace process, and noting the negative effect of these policies on progress in the Israeli-Syrian negotiation and noting the absence of any government initiative for a negotiated withdrawal from Lebanon:
Noting that Israeli soldiers are dying in futile war that cannot be won, PN-Jm calls for an early unilateral withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon in order to defend Israel’ northern border from the international in conformity to international law, including Israel’s right of defense against aggression.

Bibi Seems to Be Getting Away with Murder

Benjamin Netanyahu has every reason to be satisfied with himself. He has consistently told his followers and his opponents that he can handle Madelyn Albright and her boss without any real problems. Right now it appears that Netanyahu is getting away with blatant, thinly disguised deception, by promising some sort of puny redeployment – 10% of West Bank territory – only, if his version of what he considers full Palestinian compliance to previous agreements is accepted as a first precondition for the withdrawal. Moreover, the Palestinians must agree to immediate commencement of discussions on the final status agreement. If all this happens according to the Netanyahu blueprint – Israel will consider performing the pullback 5 or 6 months down the road – if peace and quiet reign supreme.
Meanwhile, he has an invitation to the White House, where we are told, Bill Clinton, consummate politician that he is, has full understanding for Bibi Netanyahu’s coalition problems. Meanwhile, in order prepare himself for what is supposed to be some sort of ordeal, namely US pressure to make genuine steps towards peace and the fulfillment of the Oslo Accords, Netanyahu is busy making proclamations to the effect that the West Bank is part of Israel, and settlement activity will continue and even increase. Whatever Ms. Albright told Bibi, he has every right to appear to the Israeli public as if he has her and her boss under control.
According to the official US line, we are given to understand that the President of the United States is going to go make a serious diplomatic effort to get the Prime Minister of Israel to promise an inconsequential, highly tentative pull back on the West Bank. Since Clinton must succeed, the target is lowered to achieving one, single, not too consequential step – in the form of an extensive photo opportunity. Thus, Netanyahu’s basic strategy – delay and more delay – receives a tremendous boost from the United States which is supposed to be concerned that the peace process is, for all practical purposes, almost dead.
The United States is least of all concerned by the fact that they are ditching all the dove forces – including the most consistent pro-US elements in Israeli society - which are disgusted to see Netanyahu succeed in sabotaging the peace process. A central criticism of Netanyahu has been that his arrogant, nationalist policies will isolate the country and do serious damage to its basic interests. But if he is coddled by a “wishy-washy” United States administration which cooperates fully with has plans to bury the peace process – it is we in the peace camp who becomes, for the time being, the “unrealistic” and “panicky” element…
Yet Another Example of U.S. Arrogant Incompetence
It may well be that we are well on the way to experiencing another of the major U.S. policy blunders. U.S. power and wealth are such that the U.S. administration can always chose the line of least internal resistance in any major foreign policy question. Though it is almost inconceivable that the United States could have any genuine reason to abandon the pretence of acting like an honest broker in the area, the United States, it appears, the U.S. is afraid of getting into any quarrel with Netanyahu. The result is that new levels of violence and new rounds of bloodshed are around the corner. That’s what happens when peace is strangled and suffocated.
Of course, these words, create an opening for friends to remind us that we should never have had any illusions whatsoever regarding Oslo. The sad reply is that there is for the while no other alternative, and given the relevant prevailing balance of forces, any return to a chance for peace will take place under the same banner. Intelligent critics of Oslo know this well. They too, for this reason, can take little comfort in the degradation of the peace process, sponsored by the United States.
D.C. Darling
How very strange! Netanyahu is unable to command the loyalty of his party, he cannot keep his coalition in line, the Israeli economy is in the throes of a crisis and social-economic tensions are rising. Netanyahu is on a collision course with world Jewry. The Arab world has found him totally untrustworthy, Europe distrusts him – but Washington DC bends over backward to show its deep respect….