The Palestine Conflict

By Maria Khan

The Middle Eastern region of the world is a geo-political unity, entwined in the grip of imperialism. Similar to all backward countries controlled by imperialism, the states of the region display pre-capitalist relations of production coexisting with the most advanced forms of capitalist production. However, the region primarily remains an oil supplier for the developed capitalist states since any progressive industrialization is prevented by the monopolies ruling over the global market.
Undoubtedly, the United States has become the dominant imperialist country in the region. American imperialism mainly prevails through the agency of local ruling classes, the local bourgeoisie (although military intervention is always a possible substitute). As capitalism took roots in the Arab states, it inevitably gave rise to a capitalist class strongly integrated with the feudal landowners and foreign imperialists. Simultaneously, the proletariat was formed by the pauperized peasants and artisans bearing the burden of the capitalist interests of the bourgeoisie. Hence, the Arab bourgeoisie itself became the main instrument of exploitation because of its economic and political dependence on the imperialists and the fear of the proletariat. The most extreme examples of such semi-colonial states are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
In light of the above scenario, it can be inferred that the Arab bourgeoisie lacks the ability of heralding a bourgeois-democratic revolution i.e. “the destruction of the political and social influence of imperialism, the abolitions of the feudal survivals in the countryside, industrialization, national unity and political democracy.” (The Palestinian Question and the Struggle for Socialism in the ME, 2001). Its futile attempts to unify the divided region were in the form of the Arab League, the Egyptian-Syrian unity, etc. Moreover, the 1991 Gulf War, Iran-Iraq War and the recent Iraq War prove that the Arab countries are essentially divided on the lines of imperialism and that the local bourgeoisie does not have the will to break this status quo. Thus, the task of unification must devolve to the proletariat.
It was in this volatile region of Middle East that Israel was conceived by imperialist Britain and is nourished by U.S. to further their “strategic interests”: hence, the Zionist settlement in the heart of the Palestinian local population. The Arab bourgeoisie plays on the mass movements targeted against Zionism to portray Israel as the ‘common enemy’, thus camouflaging the fact that Zionism is not the only factor which furthers the imperialist control of the region – another being the local ruling classes themselves. This paper attempts to establish the parasitic existence of both these classes, sucking the life out of the proper owners of the land they dwell upon.
It follows that in spite of the antagonism between the Zionist and the Arab bourgeoisies and the preferential treatment given by imperialists to the latter, both share a common interest: preventing the outbreak of a social revolution in the Middle East (witnessed by their collaboration in Jordan in 1970, in Lebanon in 1976, etc).
To understand Zionism, it becomes imperative to trace its roots to its formative years. Zionism developed in Europe as a result of anti-Semitism which was in turn produced by the decomposition of capitalism in its imperialist stage, reaching its barbaric apogee` in the Holocaust. It was in fact the bourgeois solution to the Jewish problem which presented modern anti-Semitism not as a product of capitalist decay but as an inherent characteristic of the gentiles. Thus, the proposal was not the abolition of capitalism through a socialist revolution but the migration of Jews to Palestine with the aid of the imperialist powers who viewed this solution as ‘good riddance’.
Therefore, it must be explicitly stated that Zionism is not a national liberation movement. It is in fact an ally of imperialism, systematically expropriating the Palestinians from their lands and excluding them from places of work. Starting from the expulsion of more than 800,000 Palestinians during the “Independence War” of 1948, Israel has had an outstanding record of wars, ethnic cleansing and racism. It follows that the Palestinians are victims of a rather different form of oppression: unlike most oppressed classes, they are not only exploited by the national but also by the Zionist bourgeoisie.
What about the Zionist proletariat? The large amount of aid received from imperialist states has created a parasitic social stratum (composed of the army and the state administration) within Israel which has a direct interest in the continuation of the present policies. But the Jewish workers (excepting perhaps the top-most strata) have no real interest in the existence of the Israeli state. The primary reasons for their traditional support for Zionism has been their co-optation through the Histadrut (“a fake trade union”(Challenge#67, 2001)), the ethnic divisions within the working class, and the absence of a political organization that can integrate their class demands with the democratic demands of the Palestinian masses. The so-called “globalization” has ensued unprecedented levels of unemployment not only outside but also within Israel. At the bottom-end of it are the Arab workers both in Israel and in the territories: a startling 60% of the population of the West Bank and Gaza is unemployed.
The Oslo agreements that awarded the transfer of power of a mere 20% of historic Palestine to the Palestinian Liberation Organization were a ray of hope. In reciprocation, the Palestinians were required to recognize Israel as the main power in the region. Subsequently, the West Bank and Gaza were further divided and re-divided, establishing an Apartheid regime over a number of Bantustans under Zionist control. The PLO replaced its slogan of a democratic and secular republic in the whole territory of Palestine by the program of the Zionist leftist and Stalinism: “two countries for two peoples”. Hope for any immediate success withered away. The PLO stance not only discounted the existence of those Palestinians living under Jewish control, but also represented a renunciation of the right of return of the 3.5 million Palestinian refugees to their homeland.
The Palestinian leaders shifted their line of argument from a struggle with Israel against the theft of land and resources to a psychological problem: “changing the image one has of the other, building trust and cooperation, creating a culture of peace and friendship.” (Efrat, 2001). It soon became apparent, however, that the “Information Revolution” did not mitigate the tyranny of capitalism. Instead of minimizing the economic gaps through “globalization-for-all”, it has led to the further marginalization of the have-nots. Accordingly, in terms of Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Israeli economy has been integrated into the global system resulting in its growth by leaps and bounds; while the Palestinian side is further debilitated, the standard of living declining by 30%. The thriving Israeli economy today depends on two factors: the export of day-labor and donations from the imperialists. It is now evidently clear that the notion of achieving an independent Palestinian state “once the PLO establishes itself as the Palestinian Authority” is not viable. The Oslo Accords were indeed a design of the imperialists who aimed to liquidate the Palestinian question by recognizing the PLO and giving it token power. The present Intifada is the result of the rebellion of the masses against this entire process.
The global capitalist order is such that the bourgeoisie sells the interests of the majority in order to increase its monopoly and to further its own interests. “The national project turns into that of a single class.” A religious façade is donned when necessary. In these circumstances, the idea of a viable independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is inconceivable. This is not only perpetuated by international capitalism, but also by the arrogant Zionist attitude towards the Palestinians. This is inherent in the Oslo Accords, “an agreement that Israel made not with the Palestinian people, rather with its co-opted bourgeoisie.” The Israeli continue to view Palestine as a mere protectorate – a pool of cheap labor and a market for selling their goods. Israel would not bear to have a real Palestinian state next door. “Real” in terms of its economic independence and strength so much so that it departs from Israel’s orbit of influence (Efrat, 2001).
Thus, the two-state solution is not only denounced by the Palestinians but it is not supported by the Israeli bourgeoisie either. The alternative solution of a weak Palestinian pseudo-state is also unreasonable because such a state cannot possibly thrive in peaceful co-existence beside a nation more highly developed than all others in the region. In other words, an independent Palestine cannot co-exist with a capitalist Israel.
If the solution is neither peace nor war, where then shall we find it? It is best to understand the political and economic processes that exist in the region. The collapse of the Soviet Union led the leaders of the new world order to conclude that the international working class would be at their feet, for them to savagely exploit. This delusion was dispelled at the end of nineties when “the aggressive brand of capitalism…suffered setbacks”(Efrat, 2001). Conflicts of interest between Japan and the U.S., between the U.S. and Russia, as well as difficulties in stabilizing the Middle East, all show that the world capitalists have reached that point where competition is unavoidable. This brings to mind the colonial powers of the last century that kept peace with each other as long as there was territory available to colonize. It was the unavailability and eventually the head-on competition that became the harbinger of the World War. The first victims of such competition are always the poor, the destitute, those at the lowest ebb of the economic structure. As the market shrinks, and as smaller countries like Saudi Arabia increase their demands, the conflicts among the big capitalist powers gain momentum until they explode into wars. Such differences take expression in regional or ethnic conflicts. Already there is considerable unease felt towards the aggressive attitude of the U.S. bent to maintain its super dominant status.
This New World Order was far from obvious when the Oslo accords were initially signed but it should be explicitly clear now, that within the global capitalist system as it stands today, the Palestinians belong to the group of poverty-stricken peoples of Latin America, Asia and Africa. Co-existence in the current state of affairs is equivalent to serfdom. The Arab regimes remain paralyzed under the interests of their capitalist classes. Until and unless the entire balance of forces is not revamped and the numb mindset which blindly accepts the dictatorship of the U.S. is not rejuvenated, Israel will remain undefeated. The rules of the game must be changed. Those who have remained silent for so long must raise their voices against injustice, oppression and exploitation.
In conclusion, neither peace nor war is a suitable solution for the Palestinian problem. A complete change is the order of the day- a change that rescales the imbalance between the rich capitalist states and the poor receiving states. This can be achieved through only two means: intensification of the conflicts within the capitalist system, or through an alternative answer presented by the victims of the system itself. Thus, the Palestinian people, together with the rest of the Arab world, must revoke the anti-imperialist camp. The corruption and duplicity of the Arab regimes, PA included, must be annihilated. The dictatorships must be replaced with democratic leaderships – where democracy must be brought forth as participative democracy, not the elected democracy that we are used to. The fusion of the national and democratic struggle of the Palestinian masses with the struggle against exploitation of the Jewish and Arab workers should be formalized through a Constituent Assembly of all the residents and expelled people of the country, in order to establish a democratic, secular and socialist republic in the whole territory of historic Palestine. Thus, the alternative proposed is socialism that wipes out private wealth and hands it to its proper owners. The proletariat must “stand at the front of the petty-bourgeois and declassed elements and combine democratic reforms with the socialist struggle against the local bourgeoisie and imperialism.” This is not only the necessary alternative to capitalism but is also an ideological and practical alternative to globalization. It must be realized that globalization is but a regime that the U.S is presently imposing on the rest of the world. The “global village” is far from being a place of equal opportunity or a sanctuary for human rights. Nor is globalization merely an “information revolution”. Rather, “it amounts to a counter-revolution in the relations between the state and the owners of capital.” (Efrat, 2001). Capitalist globalization is indeed a deliberate construction of the few elites that enables them to exploit the destitute many. The same system, however, should be used by its victims to unite and turn the guns around!



Bibliography

Efrat, Y.B., January-February 2001, The Solution: An Internationalist Perspective. Challenge # 65, Site accessed in March 2003, http://www.hanitzotz.com/challenge/65/talk.html
Challenge #67, May-June 2001, The Palestinian Bourgeoisie and the National Program: Debate with the Palestinian Left. Site accessed in March 2003,
http://www.hanitzotz.com/challenge/67/mis.html

Hollis, R., 1996, The State in the International System- Alternative Theoretical Frameworks. Site accessed in March 2003, http://www.passia.org/seminars/96/statein.htm
Leon, A., March 2002, The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation, First English edition: Ediciones Pioneras, Mexico City 1950. Site accessed in March 2003. http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/march_02/mar_02_29b.html
Marx, K., Frederick Engels, 1848, Manifesto of the Communist Party. First published in February 1848 in London. The translation used follows that of the authorized English translation by Samuel Moore of 1888 and Hal Draper's 1994 translation.
ODA E-book, December 2001, The Palestinian Question and the Socialist Alternative. Site accessed in March 2003, http://www.odaction.org/book/.html

Socialism and Democracy, 2003, The Palestine Question.
http://www.socialismanddemocracy.org/32/palestine_question.htm

The Palestinian Question and the Struggle for Socialism in the Middle East, March 3rd 2001. Lecture delivered at an International Seminar and Conference on the Balkans and the Middle East, held in Athens, Greece, 15-19 March 2001. Transcribed by Daniel Rubinstein. Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for REDS – Die Roten. Site accessed in March 2003, http://www.marxists.de/middleast/current/struggle.htm

Treanor, P., 2003, Zionism = Racism. Site accessed December 2003, http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/zionism.html