I don't know anything about the history or internal politics of the SWP. But I
do know that many socialists in Europe and in the US supported Israel from its
inception and supported the idea of a Jewish socialist state in Palestine from
the late nineteenth century. Many of the European jews who emigrated to
Palestine in the early 1900's, were secular Jews and socialists. They were
thinking about a secular Jewish community to which European Jews could escape
from anti-semitism. I have a feeling that there are deep rooted attachments to
Israel within the socialist movement because of this history. Additionally, its
important to remember that the pro Israel propaganda has been so very strong
over the years, that Jewish people who, for example in the US, were
traditionally very sensitive to injustice toward others, who were allies to
Black America because they identified with groups being discriminated against,
who were very active in the Communist movement in the 30's, those same Jews
have found it easy to rationalize what was being done to Palestinians in their
name. Bernie Sanders, who considered himself a socialist as a young man, who
fought for civil rights for black people, and who is talking about fairness to
Palestinians, cannot bring himself to admit that Israel as a Jewish state with
no right of return for Palestinians, is wrong. Neither, by the way, can Noam
Chomsky.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 4:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bob Hachey <bhachey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Killing of Gaza protesters provokes debate in
Israel
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
