Nationalism of oppressed countries, again! (was Re: MSStatement on > the Intifada

Gorojovsky Gorojovsky at SPAMarnet.com.ar
Sun Feb 18 15:47:35 MST 2001


En relación a Re: Nationalism of oppressed countries, again! (w,
el 18 Feb 01, a las 15:52, Xxxx Xxxxxx dijo:


"Nestor wrote:

>That is, I am against the rejection of Lenin's theories on imperialism. I
would
>like the comrades in Israel to explain that while Israel remains a Zionist
>state, then there will never exist a prospect of war.

True. but what is still implicated in your assumption that there can bea
different Israeli state other than a Zionist state. Noteyour emphasis on
"while Israel remains a Zionist state"."


I was just being ironic, Xxxx. What I mean is that while I don't see the MS
cdes. criticizing Zionism, I see them criticizing Arafat. And I don't believe
that this is exactly a revolutionary position. Once they criticize Zionism,
they can criticize Arafat. But of course, ON THE SAME LEAFLET OR DECLARATION.
No Leftist in an imperialist state can criticize the leadership of an oppressed
state (no matter how sepoy this leadership is, no matter how sold out it is)
without first and foremost criticize its own state.

Xxxx goes on:

"Should we imply from this that thatif Israel does not remain a Zionist state,
there will "exist a prospectof war"? If any Isreali state is by _definition_ a
Zionist state, there can not any possibility for a non-Zionist Israeli state
either. Statehood for Jews directly derive its definition from Zionism. One can
not reject the latter whilestill remaining the former. The solution is to
reject theidea of _Israeli state_ total, not only its current form. "

We couldn't agree more. This is the kernel of my criticism of MS, in fact. BTW,
please read the following (quoted by you) where the same lines I wrote on the
first part of this same posting appear to be copied from my previous one:

>But no, the comrades in
>MS dedicate long paragraphs to criticizing the Palestinian Authority. When
they
>show that they are consistently anti-Zionist, I may begin to have a milder
idea
>on their propositions.

To this, you add:

"I don't think that there is any disagreement between you and me that the
Israeli left and working classes *should* be anti-Zionist.This is a must,
partly because I don't see all Jews as personifications of Zionism. For this,
however,we needsome evidence,rather than assuming, that the Jewish left can
be anti-Zionist (although I have not seen a strong evidence forthat so
far)This being the case, it is not under the monopoly of MS to criticize the
Palestine Authority. I disagree with them on this issue."

Neither did I see any evidence of what you (and I) request from a truly
Leninist Israeli Left: that they be anti-Zionist. That is why my feelings grow
gloomier with time as regards Israel and the Israelis.

Mine adds:

"However, many Palestinians are not content with their leadership either. Does
that mean that they have become apologists for Zionism?"

Certainly, Palestinians may believe that they have many a good reason to
criticize and to replace their current leadership. That they are in their full
right to do so goes without saying. In my own view, they have every right to
keep their leadership, change it, shoot it, ignore it, or whatever.

Nor do the last possibilities turn them into apologists for Zionism. The only
risk here (an unlikely risk) is that the most stupid among them believe it
fitting to collaborate with Zionists (even "Leftist" Zionists) against their
own authorities, however corrupt and demoralized they can be. In this sense,
the propositions by the MS group convey a hidden danger, which is precisely the
danger I mention on the precedent sentence. No Israeli group can, without
rejecting Zionism, extend an apparently (and probably well meant) hand to the
Palestinians in their criticism of their ledership: this only tends to confuse
things in the Palestinian camp as to the actual meaning of Zionism.

Mine:

" The first rule of following Lenin's theory of imperialism,ifwe want to
follow it, isnot to rely uncritically onthe neo-colonial administration
ofPA.PA has become a proxy for imperialist powers by maintaining Palestine
as a divided nation.It went against the original mission of intifada-- a fully
independent status for Palestinians as a nation with its own state."

I don't feel authorized to speak on the Intifada, its goals and the rejection
of its original mission by the current Palestinian leadership. My only take
here is with Israelis, with Jewish Israelis. I will respect any decission the
Palestinians make as to their own leadership. And, of course, I will support
with all my forces any tendencies within the Palestinian camp struggling to
replace this leadership (or any other leadership) with a socialist,
revolutionary, leadership. But, honestly, Mine, I don't have the face to go
tell the Palestinians what to do. My opinions on their situation I prefer to,
er, keep to myself.

Ouch, I did it again! You goad me into this Middle East issue, Mine! Will try
harder, will wait for others to enter the debate and shut up.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar





More information about the Marxism mailing list