The Fear of Inundation

A number of prominent figures in the Israeli peace movement, many of them prominent leaders in MERETZ and Peace Now, published an appeal to the Palestinian leadership on January 2, 2001. These leaders of the Zionist left considered it urgent to stress that “we shall never be able to agree to the return of the refugees to within the borders of Israel, for the meaning of such a return would be the elimination of the state of Israel.” Furthermore, they declared in the same vein that “the massive return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel would conflict with the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.” (Ha’aretz, January 2, 2001)

The issue of the Palestinian refugee’s right to return on the basis of UN Resolution 194 and the intense current political debate between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on the subject are seen by many in the peace movement as the stumbling block to the successful conclusion of the current negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The truth is that the intensity of the current diplomatic struggle around the refugee issue and the resulting polarization are the result and not the cause of the demise of the U.S. sponsored peace process. We shall see how this stalemate was engineered.

No Grounds for Despair, No Grounds for Fear

I hope that many of my friends who have recently expressed deep fears and anxiety regarding the refugee issue will be able to understand, in the not too distant future, that the Palestinian authority and any self respecting Palestinian body would have to defend the letter and the spirit of Resolution 194 in the circumstances that developed in the wake of Camp David 2000 and Intifada II. The assumption that the defense of UN Resolution 194 by the Palestinian Authority means that the Palestinians are unwilling to make peace with Israel unless Israel relinquishes it policy and ability to maintain the Jewish nature of the country is fallacious for the following reasons.

Even on the declarative level, responsible Palestinian leaders have always made the distinction between the recognition of the rights of the refugees and the specific mechanisms involved in the implementation of this right. Implementation, as part of an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, would involve a lengthy process based on a mix of international political and financial commitments, repatriation, resettlement, compensation and various checks and balances reflecting Israeli sovereignty. There is no reason to believe that any other process is envisaged by the Palestinian Authority.. This being the case, the morbid fear of many Israeli doves that recognition of UN 194 means that Israel would be inundated and swamped by millions of Palestinian refugees – turning Israel into an additional Arab state - has no basis in reality. The fear is unfounded and its cultivation can only help the enemies of peace to maintain the occupation. There is a neurotic component in this fear that reminds one of the racist anxieties in the West over the impending deluge of the ‘yellow hordes.’ In case you haven’t figured out the scenario of this horror film, here it is: tens of thousands of refugees return to Israel, living in peace with its neighbors. The repatriated refugees are successfully absorbed economically and politically. Then, hundreds of thousands return to Israel and are likewise absorbed in Israel. The former refugees are living in peace with their Israel neighbors, just as Israel is living in peace with the Arab world. And then, all of a sudden (!), the (former) refugees and all the Arab countries, headed by the Palestinian state suddenly declare, gotcha – we fooled you, and unless Israel becomes an Arab state (or a colony of Palestine) and a member of the Arab League, we will declare war and destroy you! In short, the declaration by the leaders of the Zionist left is founded on fear, neurosis, panic - the refugees are coming!!

The Current Impasse

Aside from the rights and the wrongs of the conflict that should never be forgotten, public figures should equip themselves with some understanding of the diplomatic process. In cool and calm scenes that are based on trust and allow for some progress, negotiations work around and through differences of principle in an attempt to create solutions that involve serious amelioration for all concerned. In times of diplomatic crises (when the chances for an agreement narrow) both sides become more ‘principled’ and explain to their constituencies the bad faith of the other side. Since there is, for the time being, no real progress towards peace, Barak seeks to neutralize criticism from the peace movement by pretending that a settlement hinges on unconditional and unqualified Israeli acceptance of UN Resolution 194.

Barak finds it easy to manipulate Israeli public opinion because many in the peace movement hold the belief that the there were informal understandings with the Palestinian leadership that it would be helpful in ‘going easy’ on the refugee issue when and if all other issues had been settled satisfactorily. Even if this view has some foundation in contacts between key Palestinian leaders and sections of the Israeli peace movement, it is clear that these understandings do not apply, and could not apply to the circumstances pertaining to the present stage in negotiations with the Palestinians.

After Barak declared in the wake of the failure to reach an agreement at Camp David that Israeli has no partner for peace, after the brutal, bloody and unsuccessful attempts to suppress the Intifada, after Barak has reaffirmed again and again that he would never give in on sovereignty over the Temple Mount, he proceeded to openly challenge the Palestinians to give in on UN 194 in order to advance agreement on all the other issues. Palestinian refusal of this kind of deal was inevitable. This is so clear as to almost make the following comments superfluous. But, just in case it is necessary, let us explain why.

Firstly, the assumption by Barak’s supporters that all the other major issues were already settled is simply without foundation. At this point there is no dearth of reliable information to the effect that there are still tremendous difficulties regarding the division of Jerusalem, the allocation of territory to the Palestinian state and the removal of settlements. It is painful to see how many in the peace camp insist on playing into the hands of every Barak twist and turn. The latest kite sent up in the air by Barak is this big exchange: we give you the Temple Mount and you give us 194. Is there anyone with a minimum of political savvy in the Israel who believes that the Palestinian Authority could start working out the details of a deal on such principles. Isn’t it quite clear to any informed observer (and this should include some highly intelligent left-Zionists) that this gambit is a non-starter and so crude in its intent and its timing that it must be seen inevitably as a provocation against any serious negotiations.

Secondly, even if there indeed existed this ‘informal understanding’ that the Palestinians would not block an agreement because of the refugee issue, this understanding might have been plausible in the context of a new set of interim accords. It was and still is totally implausible and totally inconceivable that the Palestinians would ignore the refugee issue within the framework of a final status agreement putting ‘an end to the conflict’. There was no basis whatsoever for anyone in the Israeli peace camp to believe, on the basis of this informal understanding, that the Palestinian Authority would forfeit the rights of the Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolution 194 within the framework of an interim agreement and in order to reach such an agreement. This distinction between a major step forward wherein the Palestinians could agree to less than full and complete acceptance by Israel of 194 and a final agreement, under which Palestinians forfeit all further claims, including the human, civil, and political rights of 3-4 million refugees is clear to every Palestinian. One would hope that this distinction should be clear to leaders of the Zionist left.

Thirdly, in the hard world of realpolitik there is still another consideration. Supposing you were a serious Palestinian leader and willing, for fear that you could do no better, to ‘forget’ about the refugees and sign their rights away for a decent deal on borders and Jerusalem, are you certain that you have a partner? Can anyone on the Zionist left guarantee that Barak is willing to follow through on such an agreement (witness his ability to declare again and again that he will never surrender Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount to the Palestinians). Would you suggest to the Palestinian leadership that it renounce its obligation to the refugees for a mere chance that Barak might honor a commitment? Moreover, here in the real world, we hear that Mr. Barak is a rather temporary figure on the Israeli scene, without a parliamentary majority, without a cabinet, without advisors, without a party and without even a long chance of being prime minister in less than a month.

Finally, the leaders of the Zionist left seemed to have lost their international bearings. Usually sensitive to the positions of the international community and especially the United States, the Zionist left finds itself at odds with almost every segment of that community which refuses to accept its version to the effect that implementation of 194 means the elimination of Israel. Why is it clear to all people and political forces that want peace that Palestinian insistence on UN 194 is, to say the least, legitimate? Why do so many genuine friends of Israel in the international community refuse to accept the argument that one must choose between the existence of Israel and a fair solution for the refugees?Trailing Behind Events

The Zionist left has often played important roles in pushing for concrete steps for Israeli-Arab peace. It has also been, in different circumstances, a brake on the political and the ideological development of the peace camp. All too often it has tailed after the more consistent, internationalist component of the Israel peace movement. After the 1967 War, the Zionist left insisted on its orientation on Jordan and the “good king” as the partner for peace, long after it had become clear that it was the PLO, which represented the Palestinian people. The Zionist left insisted that the PLO was a ‘terrorist organization’ long after important Israeli and international groups had demonstrated PLO willingness to negotiate with Israel. The Zionist peace camp was until very recently quite unclear regarding the need to base any settlement on the pre-June 1967 borders. Just recently, (and after Barak) it began supporting Palestinian rights and sovereignty in Jerusalem. Lastly, it echoed Clinton and Barak in claiming that Arafat had done irrevocable harm to the chances for peace by not buying Barak’s ‘far-reaching concessions’ at Camp David. To its credit, it should be noted that the Zionist left calmed down and developed a deeper understanding of the issues within several months, rejecting Barak’s argument that Israel has no partner for peace.Unfortunately, many other instances of ‘delayed reactions’ can be cited. On the other hand, it is also quite important to point out that invariably there are many sincere activists associated with the Zionist left (usually those quite distant from the power centers of the establishment) who are free of the leadership’s inhibitions and open to a balanced, internationalist approach.

The reason for this inherently sluggish thought process stems from the basically empirical approach of the Zionist left. The Zionist left is a progressive force because it understands the value of peace and that Israel is strong enough to make important concessions for peace. But these concessions are seen in a purely instrumental fashion. The Zionist left, obsessed with Jewish suffering and Jewish homelessness and Jewish traumas, has neither the inclination nor the theoretical tools to analyze the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an objective, non partisan manner. For the Zionist left, any peace is a just peace if it assures functional stability. For humanists and democrats, peace is important in and of itself, but it can bear genuine fruit only to the degree that it is just, i.e., that it meets elementary standards of universal justice. A peace that would turn its back on the fate of three to four million refugees, and refuse to transform their situation, would hardly meet such standards.

Failure of First Major Attempt at Socialism

Two basic trends are making for a renewed examination of the issue of socialism. The first trend is the growing awareness that, even in times of relative prosperity, the world capitalist system is characterized by a number of serious, if not fatal, flaws. This trend found its expression in the struggle against the WTO in Seattle. Many, if not all of the young people involved – on a world scale - in this battle have come to understand that theirs is a battle against the system and not merely against some of its more sordid manifestations. Locally, this trend is expressed in the thinking and the attitudes of some of the new cadre in the Green movements.
The second trend is the rising interest in the social justice issue here in Israel. There is more and more evidence that governmental economic policies over the years have institutionalized many of the worst aspects of Israeli capitalism: large scale unemployment, poverty, economic polarization between poor and rich. Many “children of the establishment” are appalled at the sure and steady erosion of any semblance of social solidarity, and many of the younger generation from “the other Israel” are beginning to realize that the economic cards are heavily stacked against them and their families. Here, in this context, the dominant trend is the search for alternative policy framework accompanied by a deep reformist faith that a democratic upheaval can force a basic change in policy so as to “restore” social justice. Despite the reformist tendency of the criticism in the local arena, there is a growing awareness that most of the problems of capitalism in general and Israeli capitalism in particular are inherent and structural. The uneasy sense that the problem may well be capitalism, itself, is reinforced by the arguments put forward in the name of the system: the system is global in nature and leaves little or no room for local modification. These developments cause many young people to ponder whether there is any alternative to capitalism. Of course, the phenomenon under discussion is certainly marginal. That is, we are not talking about masses of people. But even so, Marxists must be as attentive as possible regarding these matters. Moreover, we are not the only ones to sense this appearance of a newfound social sensitivity among many young people. This being the case, we should sharpen our memory and our wits in order to prepare ourselves for a new round of socialist advocacy. This challenge I fear, is a lot more difficult than it appears on the first impression.Socialist Advocacy in the Post-Communist Era
There does not seem to be any shortage of effective and convincing evidence regarding the evils of capitalism. It should and can be exposed as a system that negates the most basic of human values, a system that prioritizes selfishness and aggression, a system that empties democracy of any genuine content. It is precisely the growing evidence of the ugliness of the capitalist system that evokes discussion of its alternatives.Analytically, the case for socialism must be made in the following way.We are fully cognizant of the fact that the socialist experiment developed through the October 1917 Revolution did not succeed. Our first step is to explain the highly specific nature of that experiment and how the overwhelming factors attending the revolution and its aftermath were not conducive to its success.
[The discussion of how and why the revolution failed to establish a permanently viable socialist state is pertinent only to the degree that it is probable that further attempts to establish a socialist society will suffer from the same kind of objective limitations and hostile environment. Nothing could be less productive than to insist that the study of the failure of the Soviet experiment will generate a newer, better and safer path to socialism].
What has to be re-established is the tendency of capitalism to be less and less satisfactory for greater and greater sections of the world’s population. This being the case, the people must invoke their right to revolt and to establish a new form of society that would deny the exploiting circles their access to the means of repression. Given the highly socialized nature, and the advanced state of technology of production, the problem of socialism is basically different than what faced the Bolsheviks. The message is that despite the fact that socialism has failed once, this does not mean that it must fail again.
In short, the failure of communism [socialism] does not, aside from psychological considerations, block the path to mass action for socialism, based first and foremost on the social control of the means of production. In order to pave the way for such action we must state and reiterate that the preceding failure of socialism in not, in any logical sense, a reason to believe that socialism cannot succeed in new, altered conditions.
Psychological Difficulties – Analytical Truth
I think that we have to convince ourselves that this is true before we will be able to carry this message forward. Our own doubts in this respect stem from a series of historically determined mistakes that characterized our own attitude to the socialist experiment. Indeed, these can be seen as lessons to be remembered in the heat of future battles.
1. We confused a highly specific and therefore tentative breakthrough against capitalism with the expression of the iron law historical determinacy.2. In the name of advocacy and solidarity, we surrendered independent judgment and analysis.
It is incumbent on us to summarize our mistakes and clear the path for new thinking and action. We must convince ourselves again that socialism is the only genuine alternative to the present regime and we must begin to add this dimension to our current struggles. With all the pain and sorrow involved in summarizing the world wide defeat in the first round of the fight for socialism, there are no real reasons for not returning to the deepest conviction that socialism and only socialism offers a serious life-preserving alternative to capitalism. This happens to be truer today than it ever was.

The Movement Against Capitalist Globalization and the Socialist Left

After the events in Prague and the recent, impressive demonstration in Tel Aviv, it seems important to review the relationship between the new movement against capitalist globalization, and its local Israeli segment , and the more veteran revolutionary Marxist organizations. This relationship can be one of great mutual benefit or it can be a source of tensions. Since there are usually more than a few many minor sectarian organizations around which will volunteer to lead the mass movement and demand that it immediately adopt a clear unadulterated program of revolutionary socialism, it is our duty to warn clearly against any such arrogant and patronizing posture.
Even among consistent radicals, very few would currently subscribe to the axiom that the fate of socialism is presently in the hands of a specific revolutionary vanguard party. This was probably true at certain stages in the past and there is enough inner logic in the idea to prevent us from dismissing its potential relevance in the future. We might even argue that the existence of such a party is a minimum condition for the overthrow of capitalism. However, neither the overthrow of capitalism or socialism is imminent, though there is still a sound basis that they can be seen as historically inevitable. Given the rise of a broad, international movement against capitalism, the resumption of socialist education and the dissemination of an alternative socialist vision are indeed an urgent task and a duty of all radicals.
However, this duty must be distinguished from any effort to impose a socialist program on the massive, developing world movement against capitalist globalization and its horrific results. Certainly, the idea that the time has come to insert a socialist plank in the movement against capitalist globalization platform seems logical and reasonable. If hundreds of thousands of young people are saying “NO” to corporate capitalism, why should we not suggest that you must have a “YES” or a positive answer to the problems of our time. Though this approach is usually well intentioned it reveals a serious misreading of the nature of the broad movement, it underestimates its collective wisdom and innovative potential. If the attempt to impose a socialist program on the MACG is carried to its full logic, it will harm the movement and the stature of the left within it.
How the Movement Deals with and Solves the Vanguard Party Dilemma
The movement against capitalist globalization is built around a broad coalition of movements. This includes in addition to the strong representation of environmentalist forces, a broad array of radical movements suggesting revolutionary answers to the problems posed by globalized capitalism. No one objects if these, and all other component parts of the broader movement use the presence of the masses in the street for education and organization. Any group, seeing itself as a vanguard party, which would seek to dominate the movement, will find itself marginalized. It will then be able to comfort itself with the condemnation of the petty-bourgeois nature of the movement and its leadership. This, if I recall correctly, seems to have happened many, many times in the past.What Can be Done
The radical left, eschewing ‘vanguardist’ conceptions and pretensions, must be a model of devotion to the general, overall, interests of the movement. There are four key areas that can be addressed at this early point in the development of the movement. These are 1) the maintenance of unity and overcoming difficult contradictions; 2) the fight against cooption of the movement by the political establishment; 3) building and strengthening links with the unions and the organized working class; 4) active struggle for inclusion of groups and constituencies that do not gravitate easily to the movement’s style and substance. This program is the program of the radical left because it is based on the assumption that the interests of socialism and radical change will best be served by the growth and development of a strong and united movement against global capitalism.
Unity, in then present context means preventing arguments and splits around what appear to be serious conflicts of interest between component parts of the movement. When, for example, a government body claims to close down a workplace on grounds of pollution in the air land or water, eliminating tens or hundreds of jobs, the environmentalists must understand the needs of the workers whose livelihood is threatened. But the workers must also be allied with the forces that demand adaptation to environmental requirements that minimize health danger to the general population. In any event, joint demands against the government should include the interests of all parts of the public, except the profit making enterprises. They make the profits, they must make the adjustments to human needs. Yes, people and not profits.
A second aspect involved in the protection and enhancement of unity is the promotion of a movement code of conduct that starts out from the premise of complete freedom of activity along with abstention from any divisive actions. The distribution of written materials can proceed on the basis of the ‘more the merrier’. The uncoordinated use of loudspeakers or indiscriminate and disproportionate of use of controversial slogans are quite obviously a source of potential tensions. Total freedom of expression must not include the right to manipulate or distort the main, consensual messages of the whole movement. A wise leadership will generate a strong movement public opinion against divisive tactics.
Co-option
One has to be blind so as not to notice the massive attempts by the world financial and business establishment to co-opt the movement or large sections of it.Listen to their latest line: They have put out the word that much of what the movement against capitalist globalization has to say is valid. The demonstrators are invited in for dialogue and informed that much more could be achieved by working in the system and with its institutions - which also want to reduce poverty and lower debt and encourage sound environmental policy. These pious wishes are designed to weaken determination and to undermine militancy. The basic movement strategy is that fighting opposition in the streets will force concessions from the banks and the funds and their buddies. The stronger the opposition is, the greater the concessions will be. Let’s stay away from the cocktail parties and out of the boardrooms. Negotiations are, of course, part of the struggle. But when these will take place, they will be between the direct victims of capitalist ruthlessness and their direct victims – the super exploited workers, the dispossessed peoples. The subject of those negotiations will be practical and to the point, such as the reduction of super exploitation or new safeguards for the environment.
Turtles and Teamsters – All the Way
One of the most conspicuous gains, perhaps one of historical dimensions, was the cooperation between environmentalists and union leadership at Seattle The organized labor movement is a complex affair. As a rule, and this is true in Israel, it seems an integral part of the establishment. But the participants in the MACG should appreciate that there are serious contradictions between the labor movement and the establishment. The potential of the labor movement as a pivotal force for serious social change should never be forgotten or underestimated. This alliance must be forged on every level, with the national leadership of the unions, with the local union counsels and with the workers in the shops and enterprises.The movement against capitalist gobalization is an international movement based on internationalist principles. It must organize, within its ranks men and women, Jews and Arabs, Mizrakhim and Ashkenazim, veteran Israelis and new immigrants, religious and secular. Some sections of the public gravitate towards the movement, and the growing presence of middle-class educated youth in our ranks is evidence of its appeal. However, we must be conscious of a ‘distance’ between the movement, as it is composed today, and broad sections of the public and we must be aware that there are forces who will make every effort to distort and ridicule our message. A large element in our organizational efforts must be outreach to sections of the public, which are underrepresented in our ranks. The movement against capitalist globalization is a movement of the entire people and this should be reflected in its composition.
The benefits of the success of any progressive mass movement to the revolutionary left are obvious. In a period of mass struggle more and more people will respond to its organizational and educational activity. The prestige of the revolutionary left will also rise if and when its activist prove themselves loyal and devoted activists of mass movement as a whole.
Build Unity, Prevent Co-option, Ally with Labor and Reach Out to All