The Palestine Question Analyzed in the Light of Marxist Politics

I presented the following paper at the Conference devoted to Marxist Thinking in the 21st Century which took place in Havana, Cuba from May 3-6, 2006

The Palestine Question Analyzed in the Light of Marxist Politics

A. Introduction

The main focus of this paper is the analysis of the Palestinian question as a problem in Marxist politics. The paper seeks to apply several major principles of Marxist politics to the debate regarding the two main approaches to this question in the Marxist left: 1) The two-state solution based on the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside of Israel; 2) The one-state solution based on universal citizenship of both Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

This debate has often surfaced at various international meetings of the social forums and other broad coalitions, creating obstacles to unity.

It is argued here that the principles of Marxist politics hold the key to evaluating the efficacy of the two contending positions. Marxist politics can be defined as the determination of political positions informed by class analysis, as well as support and identification with working people and the exploited masses. The position adopted must be based on an exact assessment of the given relations of forces and clear political realism.

No local or regional analyses can be considered adequate without close examination and integration of international processes and the broad interests of the world wide movements against war and capitalist globalization. This broad view must include a careful evaluation of the relations of forces in effect at all levels and lead to a position informed by a high level of political realism. These categories will be more closely defined as we proceed.

B. Elements of Agreement in the Current Debate

Before surveying the present disputes, it is of critical importance to designate those important positions which are not in dispute in Marxist circles.

(1) Long after the break-up of the colonial system, the Palestinians are one of the few national entities denied elementary human rights and first and foremost their right to establish an independent sovereign state in their homeland. The most salient expression of this is the thirty-eight year old occupation of the conquered Palestinian territories wherein some three million Palestinians suffer from brutal military oppression. Simultaneously, Israel the direct occupying power has made constant efforts to annex large and important sections of these territories with an eye to further territorial aggrandizement. The monstrous apartheid wall built by Israel “for security reasons” is just one of the many acts of expropriation and dispossession, humiliation and daily suffering to which the Palestinians are subject to under the occupation.

(2) The ruling circles in Israel, both on an ideological basis and to enhance their strength vis- a-vis the Palestinians and the Arab world, have forged a strategic military, political and economic alliance with the United States. This alliance is one of the kingpins of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and the Arab world. The United States, for its part protects Israel from the wrath of international public and prevents its total isolation. Israel, on its part subjects its current politics and military strategy to the global and regional needs of the United States, serving as the potential gendarme for regional forces that might get out of line with U.S. interests.

Despite these areas of agreement, there is a sharp, ongoing debate among supporters of the Palestinian cause on questions of principle.

The debate is between two central propositions, and is also recognizable as the debate between the two-state and the one-state solution.

It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the arguments in support of each approach and to elaborate a set of strategic principles for relating to this question. No attempt is made here to relate to the wider historical canvas. For our purpose it is sufficient to survey the historical debate between Marxists on the Palestinian issue.

C. The Palestinian Question -Yesterday and Today – Marxist Perspectives

No Marxist can really question that by any historically materialist interpretation, Palestine is an Arab country and that the Palestinian Arabs are a part of the larger Arab entity. The question posed by historical transformations is how to relate to the appearance and the development of another ethnic-national entity in Palestine.

Marxists, all of whom rejected Zionist ideology in principle and practice, were in agreement as to the exclusively Arab nature of Palestine until WWII. The main outlines of the anti-colonialist struggle (1919-1939) were then the demand for independence from British rule, with assurance of democratically ensured civil rights for the Jewish minority.

The continued growth of the Jewish community in Palestine, and with it, increased class stratification, on the background of increased anti-Semitic activity in Europe, demanded a Marxist response. It might be said that at a certain point during WWII, and especially in the wake of the Nazi holocaust, there was a growing tendency in the Marxist left to recognize the existence of two national groupings, one Palestinian Arab and the second, Israeli Jewish. It should be said that Trotskyist groups rejected the idea that these changes were authentic or organic. The Trotskyist conclusion was that Palestine remained an Arab country. The Jewish minority could and should be assured of democratic civil rights, but the axis of the democratic struggle remained the call for an independent and undivided Palestine.

Under the impact of the results of the Nazi Holocaust and battle by the Jewish community in Palestine against British control and the bans on Jewish immigration, the Soviet Union (in the famous statement by Andrey Gromyko, May 14, 1948 at the United Nations) adopted the position that there being two parallel national groupings in Palestine, in circumstances of severe tensions, partition of the country was unavoidable. The existence of two national groupings in mandatory Palestine had been recognized previously in documents issued by the Communist Party of Palestine.

The issue that divides international progressive opinion still stems in large measure from the basic determination as to the nature of the people(s) of that country: whether there are two national groupings or one Arab nation and a Jewish minority. The “traditional” approach stands clearly on the basis of the proposition that the demographic and political changes in Palestine were imposed by force and violence and that the Jewish community in Palestine could not aspire to legitimate rights of a nation, especially the right of self determination.

The “modified” approach is based on the demographic transformation of the country, the existence of two separate class formations and the political divide between the two communities in reaching the important conclusion that there were two national groups in the country.

D. Israel: A Question of Policy or Legitimacy

There is no question that in the military struggle over control of the country the Jewish side was the winner. Israel’s victory was a major catastrophe for the Palestinian Arabs. Israel did not lose too much time in lining up with the major imperialist powers.

The left opposition, mainly the Communist Party of Israel, fought government policy, carefully distinguishing between the question of Israel’s legitimacy, which was not challenged, and Israel’s policies which were condemned as being inimical to the interest of the country. This distinction was accepted by the international left associated with the Soviet Union and the Communist movement. This modification was considered a major and unjustified concession by Trotskyist thinking. And, of course, the legitimacy of Israel was challenged from the Palestinian and Arab standpoint.

These two lines of approach are reflected to this very day in our discussion, though not always in their “purer” forms, and continue to shape the political discourse on related subjects.

Ideological skirmishes between the two lines continue over the years. The falling prestige of the Soviet experience encourages the view that the Soviet-Gromyko (1948) input was basically episodic and opportunistic, a bad bet on Israel as an “anti-imperialist” force that never paid off. On the other hand, the attempts by the Arab world and the Palestinian leadership to promote policies negating Israel’s existence were ultimately rejected by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and almost all the secular forces in the Arab world.

E. The Polarized Political Debate Today

There is a nearly universal consensus that the status quo based on the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories acquired in the June 1967 war is unacceptable, immoral and illegal in terms of international law. In terms of real politik, the ensuring conflict is a source of tensions and instability, not to speak of the price in human suffering born chiefly by the Palestinians, but not only by them.

The Palestinian leadership (with the exception of the Islamic forces) along with the international community and public opinion overwhelmingly support the two-state solution. The contours of a settlement based on the establishment of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state in the territories acquired in the June 1967 war are well known, as a result of a series of long and detailed negotiations. Such a solution requires the retreat of Israel to the 1967 borders, though exceptions can be negotiated on the basis of a 1-1 land swap. Jerusalem will be the capital of each state and sovereignty will be divided according to the composition of each neighborhood. The basics of an arrangement for the holy places have been worked out. This solution will take into account the rights of the Palestinian refugees, including serious material compensation for all refugees, the right to settlement in the new Palestinian state, citizenship rights for those who remain in their country of exile, immigration opportunities, and some degree of agreed repatriation to Israel on a humanitarian basis. This proposal for a final status agreement and peace between the two peoples has been accepted by the leadership of the Palestinian people and the Arab world, until the recent election debacle of the Fatah movement. It is this proposal which has been rejected by the ruling circles in Israel and their U.S. backers.

The proponents of the one-state solution proceed from the moral and legal rejection of any settlement based on the recognition of Israel. They assert that the Israeli settlement project and the illegal introduction of some 200,000 Israeli citizens into the occupied Palestinian territories has made partition a physical impossibility and insurmountable economic and financial obstacle.

The supporters of the one-state solution agree that their’s is a solution based on long term processes without promise for the early amelioration of Palestinian suffering. Its virtue is that it avoids an agreement based the present detrimental balance of forces. The ratio of the one-state solution is the refusal to abandon demands which, though unrealizable in the current juncture, are central to the Palestinian cause such as the right of all refugees to return to their previous homes within Israel.

Advocates of the one-state solution argue that with the passage of time, Israel will find it harder to resist the adoption of voting rights for the entire population, which would mean a majority for the Arab voters.

At this point we have to ask ourselves how and on what basis should Marxists position themselves regarding this major issue.

F. The Impact of the Given Relation of Forces in Determining the Marxist Position on the Palestinian Issue

It is in the nature of the current era that no single characterization of the social and revolutionary processes will be accurate for the entire world. The diversity of conditions is the major theoretical argument against any attempt to guide revolutionary activity from a single center.

The regions relevant to our subject are the major capitalist countries, the West and the Arab East. In this instance, the stormy developments in Latin America are inspirational, but far, very far from our own realities.

But first, let us attempt some general comments on the world scene. Assuming the relevance of the Marxist analysis on the contradictions of world capitalism, it is always necessary to analyze and characterize the given relationship between the forces striving for socialist transformation on the global scale and the fortresses of world capitalism that have to be disarmed and conquered. Given the demise of the Soviet Union and the state system around it, it is quite clear that from the early 1990’s – if not before that – the forces of socialism had suffered a major retreat.

Unquestionably, all the ideological and theoretical calls for ‘liquidationism’ characteristic of periods of strategic retreat must be firmly rejected. The world is still very much characterized by dynamic processes and sharp international contradictions. But it would be totally incorrect and even dangerous to refuse to see that we are, in the relevant regions, in a period of regrouping, a period of the construction of new complex networks of revolutionary energies. We are in a period of a ‘war of position’ (Gramsci) and our strategic conceptions must take this into account..

The Middle East, for its part, has witnessed over the last decades a retreat in the strength of the Arab national liberation struggle. There were hopes during the height of Nasserism, during the early nineteen sixties, that the rising tide of independence and reform might curtail imperialist domination of the region and its resources. However, hopes that progressive transformations in the Arab world would come to the aid of the Palestinians is a thing of the distant past. The analysis that the ‘Palestinian revolution’ could serve as the beachhead for deep changes in the area proved illusory.

The Palestinian struggle cannot build on a perspective of imminent revolutionary upheavals. On the other hand, there are important, powerful currents of support in the international community and the Arab world that can be mobilized to overcome the insufferable status quo.

There are indications of growing internal contradictions in Israeli economic domination of the Palestinians. The class nature of early Zionist settlement decked itself out in a camouflaged version of social-egalitarianism, which was also an efficient mechanism for expropriation and exclusion of the indigenous Arab population. The class essence of this painful satire revealed itself when the new Israeli state started an enduring romance with foreign capital and launched a permanent alignment with the imperialist forces in the region against the Arab movement for national liberation.

In 1967, the occupation added a neo-colonialist dimension of social and economic subjugation of the Palestinian economy to Israeli needs. The present set-up has clear advantages for some sections of Israeli capital (especially those interested in the Palestinian market and cheap labor). Even so, there are indications that the more sophisticated capitalist elements in Israel are priming themselves to dominate the Palestinian economy via more refined neo-liberal mechanism such as regional U.S. sponsored ‘free trade’ areas – without the often embarrassing need for direct military control and subjugation.

The class significance of the Israeli-U.S. alliance is much broader and deeper than any of the particular class relationships in any Middle East country or countries. This alliance is a major strategic factor in safeguarding neo-liberal domination. U.S. unilateral support for Israeli aggression and expansionism is a lynch pin in the Middle East status quo. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its related tensions are a major resource for U.S. domination. The fight for Israeli-Palestinian peace and the weakening of Israel’s special status and privileges is an important step in isolating the Bush administration. This is the central strategic front for the forces fighting U.S. neo-liberal hegemony.

G.The Role of Political Realism in Determining the Marxist Position Regarding the Palestinian Issue - Realism in Marxist Politics

The revolutionary essence of Marxist theory and the militant organization in pursuit of revolutionary goals gave rise to misconceptions within as well as outside the revolutionary movement. The essence of this misconception is that Marxist dialectics and its emphasis on the potential of changes and shifts tend to ignore the real situation and real relationship of forces at any given moment.

Marxist practice is, or at the least should be, based on the “concrete analysis of the concrete situation.” This dictum is especially relevant in stormy periods of revolutionary transformation when there is a natural tendency to depend on factors that have not yet come into being. The two paradigm cases are of course, first, the Brest-Litovsk negotiations when Lenin rejected the slogan of revolutionary war against the Hohenzollerns because of his analysis of weaknesses in the revolutionary camp.In addition, the retreat to the New Economic Policy, a form of ‘market socialism’ was, in addition to policies required to solve urgent economic disruptions (and hunger in the cities) a result of the clear stabilization in the European social and class arena. Goals and vision nurture the revolutionary spirit but hard and cold analyses guide revolutionary strategy, and deviation from this rule is always costly.

Speaking to the subject at hand, there is no basis to envisage a sharp change in the military relationship of forces between Israel and the Palestinians, even with the Arab world at their side. Military struggle against the existence of Israel is in the realm of fantasy, not to speak of its highly questionable desirability. There is also the concrete danger that elements linked with Arab or Islamic reaction will attempt to raise the ‘anti-colonialist’ banner for the destruction of Israel for purposes totally unrelated to the cause of the Palestinian people.

Fortunately, progressive forces can and should point out that no level of Israeli military superiority can achieve for Israeli chauvinism a military victory over the Palestinian cause.

H. Against the Occupation – A Victorious Strategy

In such circumstances, the contradictions between capitalist countries and all other forms of political differentiation in the camp of capital are of critical importance. The Middle East is both an arena of intense exploitation by all the major capitalist powers and a constant source of tension between them as they jockey for advantages and in order to exploit the weaknesses of their rivals.

These contradictions are vital in constructing a broad front against the Bush-Cheney command center of international reaction and cannot be ignored. With all the importance of local contradictions, we cannot afford, for even a minute, to refuse to seek out the political strategy and tactics which can isolate our main enemy.

Progressive public opinion has justly and understandably rallied around the cause of the Palestinian people. In the broadest of terms this solidarity is an expression of opposition to the suffering of the Palestinians under occupation and for a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The argument that justice requires the reconstitution of all of Palestine as an Arab state or the dismantling of Israel as a Zionist state, whatever its merits, can only emasculate the international movement for solidarity with the Palestinian people and alienate huge sectors of the movement who are not ready to question the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. This is the reason that the overwhelming majority of Palestinian public opinion and the secular political parties in the occupied Palestinian territories and the great majority of the left in Israel have adopted a strategy for a historical compromise with Israel within the framework of two independent states.

[It is still too early to reach conclusions regarding the victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections. Many observers stress Hamas’ pragmatic turn, namely its strict observation of the cease fire with Israel negotiated by the Palestinian Authority and its willingness to participate in the elections, actually sponsored by the international community, under conditions of occupation. There is a general opinion that Hamas’s main gains stemmed from disappointment with the lack of achievement by the PA and the wide spread corruption of the Fatah party. Hamas’ policies after its unexpected rise to power depend very much on the understanding and sensitivities of the international community and its own decisions about the responsible use of its newfound prestige and strength. At any rate, it becomes harder and harder to keep the Palestinian question in deep freeze.]

Reactionary Zionist politicians, especially those allied to the Bush administration monitor every criticism of Israel to seek out a phrase or a concept on which they can pin the label of anti-Semitism. Policies challenging the existence of Israel, unreal in the terms of the relations of forces and morally problematic in and of themselves are grist to the mill of these circles. Bush, for his own selfish reasons, would prefer to appear as the defender of Israel’s “endangered” right to exist rather than being forced to admit his collusion in the continued brutal violence of the occupation. The mobilization of the broadest front against the occupation and the Israeli-U.S. axis requires clear disassociation from those who see the eventual dissolution of Israel as their immediate political program.

The one-state solution is the utopian-liberal perspective designed to challenging the legitimacy of the existence of Israel. Palestinian “rejectionism” – the political line that opposes any recognition of Israel - once drew inspiration from revolutionary perspectives, and the hope that a victorious (armed) Palestinian revolution would establish a unitarian, secular, democratic state. In the clear and decisive absence of such a perspective, it is currently suggested that eventually Israel will have to agree to grant equal rights to all residents in Palestine and on this basis Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state and Palestine will reappear as an Arab country with a Jewish minority. Hence, the main support for the one-state solution comes from circles which reject the idea of any kind of compromise with Israel.

One can understand the deep sense of dispossession and frustration that shape this position. One must not forget for a second that the refusal to recognize Israel, even as a fait accompli, has been nurtured by long years of Palestinian degradation and suffering at the hands of Israeli neo-colonialism. Therefore, the ‘rejectionist” position can be understood, but not justified. By refusing to build their struggle within the parameters of the given relation of forces and political realism, the proponents of the one state solution desert the arena of realistic politics and political activity, based on a perspective of practical goals in the given juncture.

No Marxist sees a victory in any concrete political struggle as the end of history and a ‘final’ resolution of historical processes. Just as it would be a serious political mistake to ignore the urgency and importance of a concrete achievement by the Palestinian people in the consolidation of a two state final status, it would be equally mistaken to see such a settlement as the end of all historical contradictions. Israel must still settle accounts with its colonialist heritage, and find its way to moral citizenship in the Arab East. It is hoped that this may be done without further violence and bloodshed. We can and should remind ourselves that the region, as a whole, does have a date with its socialist destiny.

Thus, in the present circumstances, the battle for an end to the occupation and the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state along side of Israel is the best way to expose the workings of the U.S. –Israel ’special relation.’ This progressive battle plan leans on the widest international support and assists in the further isolation of the Bush-Cheney drive for absolute hegemony. This battle must be at the center of a Marxist political position at this stage of the struggle to mobilize the broadest coalition for peace and justice for the Palestinian people.

The Tale of the Wagging Tail - Part II

Another Chapter in the Tale of the Tail that Wags the Dog

Note: Two distinguished U.S. academicians, John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Stephan Walt (Harvard U.), stirred up quite a storm when they published a detailed, in-depth report on the role and the workings of the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States (London Review of Books, March 23, 2006). The report, while admirable in many respects and thoroughly convincing in the documentation of a whole slew of unsavory practices by the lobby, is based on a highly questionable thesis to the effect that the lobby has succeeded in effectively taking over control of U.S. foreign policy. As a result, the professors conclude, current U.S. policy subverts and sacrifices the U.S.’s real interests in the Middle East. This conclusion is simply unacceptable for many knowledgeable and experienced observers who refuse to ‘buy’ the unsupportable thesis that the tail, in short, is wagging the dog.

The following would be a faithful rendition of some recent events if the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis were accurate…

Further Evidence of the Israeli Lobby’s Clout in D.C.

Rumsfield Goes, But Not Because of Iraq

Bye, bye, Rummy. It is terrible what they did to Rummy. Rummy who is usually a pretty savvy guy, made the mistake of his life in approving an arms deal with the Saudis and the Emirates. Well, of course, the Israelis got wind of the deviant behavior and called in the United States ambassador and made it clear, in no uncertain terms that Rummy will have to go. Some say that Rummy was the best Defense Secretary the United States ever had, and George Bush showered effusive praise on Rummy, but he had to go, and he went. When Israel and the United States get into an argument, Israel is right even if it is wrong.(1)

Jonathan Pollard: “It was Worth the Inconvience.”

Jonathan Pollard, pleasantly ensconced in the higher echelons of the Israeli security establishment for almost two decades met with the Israeli press this week to mark the 20th anniversary of his arrest for spying against the United States. It will be recalled that the Pollard incident seemed momentarily to cloud U.S. – Israeli relations back then. Pollard was released from jail after 18 months by presidential pardon. Sources close to the White House revealed that Washington was clearly embarrassed by his arrest and had to take action at the last minute before law enforcement officials were about to wreck havoc with the special status of the United States in Israel. Pollards early release restored Israeli confidence in Washington’s deep and abiding commitment to their enduring partnership.

These days, Pollard acts as some sort of master-spy adviser here in the Israeli Mosad, and enjoys excellent relations with his CIA counterparts. Pollard, officially still a persona- non-gratis in the United States, has requested to visit Washington to participate in the special ceremony honoring the AIPAC leaders and their special Defense Department liason, Larry Franklin. (2)

Bush to Present Distinguished Service Medal to AIPAC Leaders

Pollard hopes to participate in the coming Presidential Reception where AIPAC dignitaries, Steve Rosen and Keith Weismann are to receive the Distinguished Service Medal for their role in fortifying U.S.-Israeli friendship. At the ceremony, Larry Franklin recently promoted to the number two job in the Pentagon, will receive a special award from the Israeli Government, called the Tsa’Lash, which has never before been awarded to a non-Israeli.(3)

(1) At the insistence of the U.S. government, Amos Yaron was sacked (September 1, 2005) from his job as Director-General of the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Pentagon officials had previously demanded that Shaul Mofaz, the Minister of Defense, sign an official apology after it was learned that Israel had agreed to upgrade a consignment of drones that it (Israel) had previously sold to China. Sharon thanked the deposed official at a special ceremony, citing Yaron as the best Director-General in Israel’s history. Sharon knows Yaron from way back as both figures were cited by the Kahan Commission for their responsibility in the mass-killings in Sabra and Shatilla during the Lebanon war.

Eytan Haber, Yitshak Rabin’s aide de camp and intimate adviser, claims to have been witness to the following interchange: Rabin corrected former U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker. All Baker did was to bend over the table and lean towards Rabin and say: America, even when it’s wrong, it’s right.” (YNet.news.com, August 5, 2005).

(2) Pollard has been serving time for more than twenty-one years in a maximum security prison. Countless requests by prominent Israeli politicians to free him have been to no avail.

(3) Larry Franklin, a former Pentagon official, has already confessed and been convicted of breaching security regulations by passing highly classified information to the Israelis. Franklin confessed in return for a ‘lightened’ twelve-year sentence. His two couriers, Steven Rosen and Keith Weismann, both top level AIPAC directors, are expected to go on trial any day.

And more seriously: Eytan Haber, described the real nature of the Israeli-U.S. partnership in the above quoted op-ed, mourning the demise of Amos Yaron.

“The difference between an all encompassing empire and a dragged along country is much like the difference between an all powerful master and a broken down slave. One can discover this the moment an Israeli foot steps on U.S. soil at Kennedy… Israelis who were happy, cheerful…turn silent and shocked when they stand in line, to get their passports checked. No one talks…one unnecessary gesture and the clerk will show you the way home…because he, the clerk is the master of the world. He is America.”

The Troops Are Frustrated

A 12 year old Palestinian girl was killed on April 10, 2006 in Gaza. Thirteen other members of her family including her pregnant mother, toddlers, children and teen-agers were injured by Israeli shelling. The shelling continued.

The new government is still in the process of formation and coalition discussions have just begun.

Ehud Olmert, who had to make do until now with the title of ‘acting prime minister’ has now become prime-minister designate. And in some sort of a record, he is on his way to becoming a certified war criminal from day one of his new position.
The Palestinian militants in Gaza have devised a method of manufacturing, crude, primitive home made rockets. It is not difficult to slip into the nearest field and fire a couple of these off in the direction of the closest Israeli location. It is only very rarely that these rockets, Kassems in the local vernacular, cause any damage and casualties are few and very far between. This is not to say that it is very pleasant living under the threat of these rockets; it is annoying and may be even nerve racking. Israelis in the area demand expensive building modifications. And of course, there are those who trot out the old complaint: We are powerful and have this enormous army, so why do we have to suffer from this sort of thing?

The colonels and the majors are frustrated. Day in day out, a couple of rockets are fired. As a rule they fall in empty fields, in the sea, even in Palestinian territory, though some do hit the towns. As a rule no one is hurt. But the prestige of the colonels and the majors is hurt. The prestige of their superiors, the leaders of the strongest power in the region and its generals is damaged and that hurts more than anything else. What shall we do? Golda Meir said she hated the Palestinians for forcing us to do things to them that we did not want to do. The Goliath IDF starts bombing, and shelling, the artillery roars. The rockets do not go away. It is clear to everyone that “mere” bombing and shelling of the rocket launching areas will not stop the rockets. So the military correspondents and commentators are pressed into action. They explain that death and destruction, mayhem and murder of yes, civilians, will send a clear message to the Palestinians. Civilian deaths are necessary because it is not enough to try and kill terrorists. A political message is necessary. Stop the rockets or pay the price. In short, the frustrated military and the collaborating political echeleons decided in cold-blood to kill Palestinian civilians in order to send a message. To whom? To Hamas. To Fatah. To Abu Mazen. How many are to be murdered in this fashion? The number is a military secret, like Dubya’s withdrawal date. Israel has decided to murder innocent civilians to convince the Palestinians to stop the rockets. It wants it understood that the IDF will continue the killing until the Palestinian masses will rise up and smash those who refuse to get the message. This is explained day after day on Israel media as an inevitable consequence of the rockets. Golda’s ghost has arisen.

Ha’aretz reports (April 11, 2006): “Hundreds of artillery shells are being fired daily, along with air strikes, missiles and canon from naval vessels off shore…Recently, the IDF also reduced the ’safety zone’ artillery batteries must maintain around Palestinian communities. The military was aware that the decision could result in civilian casualties as occurred yesterday. The safety zone was reduced from 300 meters to 100 meters. The shell fragmentation range is 100 meters so the decision clearly endangers civilian lives.” This is happening in one of the most densely populated areas on the planet.

The media photos of hastily bandaged children being transported to the local hospital do create some kind of stir, even in the Israel media. The official response is to up the level of the commentators, especially since the next day, four additional (ineffectual) rockets come down. The general in charge of national security explains that ours is a long haul strategy. The minister of defense and the chief of staff huddle with the officers on the spot. But the two cannot even get their story straight. Halutz, the soldier, explains that there is no intention to harm Palestinians. Mofaz, the politician is much more open: If it isn’t quiet on our side, it will not be quiet on their side. The news report is careful to report that the troops are still frustrated.

Coalition Racism

A rabble-rousing crypto-fascist by the name of Avigdor Lieberman is the inside choice for receiving the Minister of Internal Security (the Police Ministry) portfolio in Ehud Olmert’s new, still evolving cabinet. Racism usually adopts its demands to local circumstances. Around here, the racists build on and intensify widespread anxieties in the Israeli populace, and come out with the slogans and arguments that are just not evoked by decent, responsible politicians. You see, now that we have a Jewish state, we must be concerned as to how Jewish our Jewish state is. Do not assume that this is a question of public morality, culture, wisdom and social solidarity, or a challenge of how exactly Israel is a “light unto the nations.”

Instead, we are back to the demographic issue, the happy hunting ground of the anti-immigration scoundrels all over the world. But here, we have a novel twist. In most places, the locals argue for restrictions on immigration. Lieberman’s party is a party of new immigrants, and its racism is directed against the Palestinian citizens of Israel. The name of Lieberman’s party is “Yisrael Beitenu” – (Israel is Our Home) and you do not have to be too sharp to pick up on the real meaning of this seemingly innocuous designation. The party platform reeks with warnings of the ‘internal’ demographic danger to Israel’s existence. The high point is the demand to transfer two areas, populated by Palestinian Arabs, citizens of Israel, to the Palestinian Authority. As of now, it appears that Olmert, with the compliance of Peretz’s Labor Party is going make this man responsible for the equal and fair application of the law.