Don't jump to conclusions. As I have said, the SWP took an entirely
different position on Israel for decades. In fact, it took an entirely
different position from the point of the very founding of Israel. It is
just lately that this new position has been adopted. Due to the
democratic centralist organizational principles that the SWP operates
under if you are not a member of the party you will not know what
happened internally to cause a change in any political position. And it
is a requirement that once a decision has been made you must publicly
defend that position whether you agree with it or not as long as you
remain a party member. Because I am not a member I do not know what
happened internally to bring about this position on Israel, but I do
know something of how the party operates internally, at least in the
past. I really find it hard to imagine that this could have happened
without a really big internal fight. As for the leadership, the national
committee is elected by the convention and all internal tendencies are
represented proportionally, That means that if the majority has now
voted to adopt the current position on Israel then the majority of the
national committee must have that position. But does this apply to all
members of the leadership. Well, the national secretary is Jack Barnes.
At least I have not seen anything that would indicate that he has been
deposed. If you look at back issues of the Militant and at Pathfinder
literature you will see very many speeches and articles by Jack Barnes
that forcefully condemn Israel. If the party's position has changed,
though, even comrade national secretary Barnes must bite his tongue and
support the new position. Furthermore, as I read these articles
supporting Israel I notice that some of the language seems to be a bit
stilted. Some of these authors I knew personally in the past and I get
the impression that they are having to force themselves to defend a
position that they do not necessarily feel very enthusiastic about.
Frankly, it seems to me that this is big enough for a split. The last
really big split in the party happened in the 1980s and it was over
scrapping the permanent revolution tactic. Socialist Action was founded
in the wake of that split and I was always at least somewhat sympathetic
toward Socialist Action. That is why I make a point of regularly reading
their press and when I do so I post their articles on this list. So far,
though, I have not heard of any splits over the Israel policy. As far as
I can tell the minority is just gritting their teeth and perhaps biding
their time to try for being the majority again. I have been out of the
movement for a long time now, but I do not even remember a pro-Israel
minority faction and that makes me wonder where they even came from. But
I certainly would not say that the leadership are lackeys of the Likud
party and most certainly not Jack Barnes. I will say, though, that if
this keeps up then Socialist Action is looking better and better to me.
On 4/12/2018 9:01 AM, Bob Hachey wrote:
Hi Roger and all,
Yes, this article was a definite disappointment to read. While it tried to present both
sides, it clearly favored the Israel side. Heck, if I were stuck living behind that
fence, I'd perhaps be inclined to act in a hostile manner. Once again, Israel uses the
relatively tame actions of a few to terrorize Palestinians. Funny how Israel who often
cries "terrorism" continues to terrorize peoples within its border. That's what
I call high hypocrisy.
Reading this article leads me to the conclusion that the leaders of the SWP are
lackeys of Israel's Likud party, just like the Democrats in Congress who claim
to be progressive, but gladly support Israeli policies while they bow to the
Israel lobby.
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:36 AM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Killing of Gaza protesters provokes debate in Israel
http://themilitant.com/2018/8215/821554.html
The Militant (logo)
Vol. 82/No. 15 April 16, 2018
Killing of Gaza protesters provokes debate in Israel
BY SETH GALINSKY
Protest actions were held in Israel March 31 and April 1 against Israeli army
attacks that killed at least 15 Palestinian demonstrators and wounded hundreds
of Gaza Strip residents. They were marching on the border to challenge the
Israeli blockade there March 30. Some 300 people protested in Tel Aviv. There
were smaller actions in Yad Mordechai near Gaza and one in Jaffa led by
Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Forces from Hamas, the Islamist ruling party in Gaza, set up five camps with
tents, portable washrooms, offering free food and Wi-Fi, near the border with
Israel as part of what they call the “March of Return.” The series of actions
will last six weeks and culminate May 15, the 70th anniversary of Israel’s
declaration of independence. Many Palestinians call it the Nakba, or
catastrophe, the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their
land.
The Israeli government pulled out from Gaza in 2005, turning it over to
Palestinian control. In June 2007 Hamas, which is backed by Tehran, wrested
control of Gaza from Fatah in bloody street fighting.
Because of restrictions on imports of basic necessities imposed by the Israeli
government — exacerbated by infighting between the Palestinian Authority in the
West Bank and Hamas — Gaza residents are dependent on United Nations aid and at
least 60 percent of its youth are unemployed.
Hamas deliberately organized the action to provoke Israeli authorities.
Despite publicly claiming it would be a peaceful, nonviolent demonstration,
members of Hamas’ military wing, the Izzadin Kassam Brigade, organized to
attack the border fence. Israeli officials repeatedly warned demonstrators to
not approach the fence, through social media, leaflets dropped from airplanes
and statements to news media.
Haaretz reported the protest was three actions in one. “The large majority of
the nearly 30,000 Palestinian protesters was groups of families” who stayed
well away from the border, despite attempts by Hamas to get them to join their
provocations; smaller groups that threw stones and rolled burning tires toward
the fence; and individuals who physically tried to wreck, burn or blow up the
fence, knowing full well that the Israeli government had warned that anyone who
did so would be met by force.
Like during three previous wars in Gaza over the past decade, Hamas’
goal was to trigger Israeli military retaliation against Palestinians who were
drawn to the protest so the reactionary group can use the deaths and injuries
to gain a hearing from the imperialist powers. Their aim is to generate
pressure on the rulers in Tel Aviv to make concessions.
Hamas admits that at least five of those killed — overwhelmingly while trying
to breach the fence — were members of its armed brigade. Israeli authorities
say 10 were, and that some shot at Israeli soldiers.
The Israel Defense Forces’ use of firepower and the resulting deaths and
injuries have sparked a debate in Israel.
Well-known radio host Kobi Meidan posted on his Facebook page that he is
“ashamed to be Israeli” because of the killings, and then was suspended by Army
Radio April 2. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman called for his firing.
“I am firmly opposed to firings based on freedom of speech,” said Avi Gabbay,
leader of the Zionist Union, the main capitalist opposition party, even though
he said he disagrees with Meidan’s viewpoint.
Rachel Azaria, a Member of Parliament from the Kulanu Party, was one of the few
members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition who defended
the radio host. “It is important that the media, like anywhere else, have a
range of opinions,” she said. “Stop censoring. You never know when it’ll reach
you.”
Pointing to Hamas’ provocations, former Israeli soldier Lior Tal Sadeh wrote to
the online Times of Israel to criticize those who suggest the Israeli soldiers
“fired live bullets at Gazans who were simply protesting.”
“You acted in an incredibly irresponsible manner,” he said.
But he also criticized those who insisted “everything was Hamas’s fault and
that there is nothing to investigate and this would teach them not to approach
the fence.”
“You too acted irresponsibly,” he said.
Michael Sfard, an Israeli lawyer well-known for his defense of Palestinian
rights, is one of those who joined the protest in Tel Aviv.
The action was organized under the slogan, “Create hope, stop the next war.”
“Those approaching the border did not present any serious danger to life or
limb. Damage to the fence would be the lesser evil,” Sfard told the Militant in
a phone interview April 4. “Maybe Hamas should be held accountable for
exploiting people. But that doesn’t diminish the responsibility of Israelis to
speak out against the killings.”
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
