[Marxism] Israel, South Africa and the single-state non-solution

Lüko Willms lueko.willms at t-online.de
Thu Jul 29 10:52:21 MDT 2010


Néstor Gorojovsky (nmgoro at gmail.com) wrote on 2010-07-29 at 11:12:57 in  
about Re: [Marxism] Israel, South Africa and the single-state non-solution:
> 
> As for me, I am for a single secular state, too.
> 
> Partly, the position that Avnery so compellingly endorses is rooted in
> the idea that having a Jewish state is a worthy goal of policy.

   What Avnery does not address in his article is the nagging against the 
zionist "left" by Yehouda Shenhav quoting Uri Elitzur as reported in the 
Haaretz weekend issue article "End game": 
> <http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/friday-supplement/endgame-1.302128>

----- cut --------------

The 1967 lines are accepted by the international community. The left is 
against the plunder of land that is taking place to the east, against the fact 
that a settlement like Ofra is situated on private Palestinian land.

"What exactly is the difference between Ofra and Beit Dagan, which is 
situated on [the former Palestinian village of] Beit Dajan? Do the 19 years 
from 1948 to 1967 make one settlement moral and the other immoral? In my 
book I quote Uri Elitzur, who says, 'You [the left] expelled the Palestinians in 
1948, did not allow them back, established settlements on all their villages 
and afterward built the separation fence, and then you come to us with 
complaints, even though we have not destroyed even one village in the West 
Bank - not even one - to build a settlement.'

"The 1967 paradigm is intended to make it possible for the left to live in Tel 
Aviv and feel good about itself," Shenhav continues. "The settlements will be 
sacrificed in order to atone for what they did to the Palestinians in 1948. The 
settlers will pay the price of the sins of the left. Yossi Beilin and his Geneva 
Initiative and all the rest want to preserve the achievements of the Ashkenazi 
elite. 

------------ off -------

  Avnery refutes most of the cloven foots in the righists revival of 
Yabotinsky, but Avnery is also a zionist. Avnery's program is to secure the 
bounty ill-gotten by the colonialist war of 1948/49 by not expanding any 
more and making friends with the Arabs. Exactly the attitude of the official 
zionist leadership which Yabotinsky criticized so sharply in his 1923 article 
on "The Iron Wall". 
 
> But anyway his insights give a clear, down-to-earth, vision of the
> dangers of a principled position when it does not find a concrete way
> to turn itself an acting reality.

   He is right when attacking "the one-state solution" as an abstract formula, 
but without the flesh of self-determination of the Arab Palestinians, i.e. the 
land question and the return of all people exiled by the Zionist aggression. 

   What the array of rightists presented in the Haaretz article envision is 
actually the traditional dream of the "revisionist" movement as explained to 
stubbornly by Vladimir (Ze'ev) Yabotinsky, especially in his best known 
article "The Iron Wall": the Arabs in Palestine must be convinced by force 
that they have to accept a position of second class citizens, and that the 
land will not be ruled by a government of the people, by the people and for 
the people, but will have government of the Jews, by the Jews and for the 
Jews. Once the Arabs vow loyalty to a "Jewish State", they are prepared to 
grant them citizenship. 

-------- cut -----------------

Porat: "In my view, every Arab has three options. 

First, those who want an Arab state and are ready to implement that goal by 
means of terrorism and a struggle against the state, have no place in the 
Land of Israel. 

Second, those who accept their place and accept Jewish sovereignty, but do 
not want to take part in the state and fulfill all their obligations, can be 
considered residents and enjoy full human rights, but not political 
representation in the state's institutions. By the same token, they will also not 
have full obligations, such as military or national service. 

Third, those who say they are loyal to the state and to its laws and are ready 
to fulfill the obligations it prescribes and declare loyalty to it, can receive full 
citizenship. 

I consider this a moral and human principle: citizenship is not forced on 
anyone or granted just like that. We tried this in East Jerusalem, and the fact 
is that we failed. 

--------------- off ----------
   
   What actually _is_ projected is the "East Jerusalem" solution, i.e. 
annexation of the territory, but considering the people living there as 
temporary residents who are offered citizenship only if they swear a loyalty 
oath to the rule of their oppressor. 

> Perhaps, in a most dialectical turn of things, the road to the single
> state may traverse some detour by way of a two-state solution.
> 
> I don⌂t know.

  There are already two states: the Gaza strip is actually the Palestinian 
state, even if under siege, under attack, and whose sovereignty is not 
respected by its neighbour Israel, when they let forein visitors into Gaza 
without coordinating those visits with the Palestinian government in Gaza. 

> I would ask how many on this list are absolutely sure that this
> development shouldn⌂t be explored.

  I don't know how it will develop. Many detours are possible.  

  But it should be clear the the control of the land, and this entails the right 
to return of all _Arab_ exiles driven out of their homes since 1948 are the 
central pillars of any possible democratic and secular Palestina, where 
nobody is discriminated against on the basis of birth, color of skin, language, 
religion, gender, what have you. 


Cheers,
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------




More information about the Marxism mailing list