The Hope for the Middle East:

[DRAGOON]

The Hope for the Middle East:
Not the Peace Process, but the Palestinian People’s Just Struggle!
awtw.org

The Palestinian people, though they number only a few million, have continued to be a focal point of world history as they struggle unflinchingly against the storm-troopers of the US outpost in the Middle East known as Israel. Over a year ago, Israeli hardman Ariel Sharon led a thousand armed soldiers and police into the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a key symbol of the Muslim religion in East Jerusalem, which is itself viewed as the historic capital of Palestine by the Palestinians and the Arab world generally. Flaunting Israel’s control of this key Palestinian site was designed to humiliate the Palestinian people and assert Israeli unchallengeable supremacy.

The response of the Palestinian people came immediately in the form of the “second Intifada”: this region will never know peace until there is justice.

For over 50 years, the Israeli rulers, backed and armed to the hilt by the world’s most powerful imperialists, have carried out repeated military aggression and wielded their overwhelming military superiority throughout the region. They have attacked and defeated the neighbouring Arab regimes in a series of aggressive wars (1956, 1967 and 1973), and annexed more Palestinian territory to beef up the security cordon around the territory seized in 1948 upon the creation of Israel. Labour Party and Likud Party alike erected settlements throughout the occupied territories, despite the unanimous condemnation of the international community, including in UN resolutions. Internally they imprisoned tens of thousands of Palestinians over the decades; they tortured thousands, in defiance of condemnation by international human rights groups; they carried out a campaign of state-sanctioned death squad assassinations of their opponents; they bombed outposts of the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority with F16 fighter-bombers; they razed thousands of Palestinian homes, making over 40,000 homeless. They threaten anyone who defies them in the region with their vast arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons built up under the protection of the US imperialists.

This is a settler colonial state that has stopped at almost nothing to subdue its opponents. And yet they know no peace. Fifty years after setting out on their blood-soaked trail of terror and death, the US imperialists’ Zionist henchmen are no closer to squashing opposition to their rule than when they first set out. This is powerful confirmation of the truth of Mao Tsetung’s observation that wherever there is oppression there is resistance.

Faced with this reality, ten years ago US imperialist chieftains George Bush and Bill Clinton pushed hard for a peace process in the Middle East that was supposed to do for that region what the change of the guard in South Africa accomplished there. A dynamic was set in motion that promised the Palestinian people an end to their degradation and oppression. The process was agreed in Oslo, sealed on the White House lawn by the Arafat-Rabin handshake, ratified in seven meetings, recorded in innumerable documents and trumpeted to the world.

The peace process has proved to be a trap. Now the whole world is seeing that the honey-coated words of the imperialists were merely fancy cover for a means of getting Arafat and the Palestinian compradors and their henchmen to do the dirty work of suppressing the Palestinian masses themselves. Arafat’s Palestinian Authority was not even given control of the flow of water into the Occupied Territories. They were allowed just enough guns to suppress internal opposition to the Israeli occupiers, but nothing that would even remotely challenge the Israeli arsenal. The detection of a single boatload of weapons to Palestine that wouldn’t come close to equalling Israel’s daily arms imports brought howls of rage from the imperialist media.

A year ago, impatient with Arafat’s inability to rein in the Palestinian people’s resistance, the US-Israeli rulers brought in as head of state Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut who presided over the slaughter of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps at Sabra and Chatila in Lebanon in 1982. Sharon’s troops have invaded much of the territory supposedly “governed” by the Palestinian Authority, showing that all along it was but an empty shell, devoid of what the Russian revolutionary leader Lenin long ago pointed out as the crux of state power: armed forces.

The peace process had taken off at a certain juncture in world politics: the Soviet social-imperialist empire had collapsed, creating a vortex that sucked under large numbers of their puppets and client states around the world. Reactionary comprador forces that had relied on the so-called Soviet Big Brother now quavered in fear at being left to face up to the US imperialists. Arafat and important sections of the Palestinian elite likewise concluded they had no choice but to jump at the bait of negotiations. And so they traded in the Palestinian revolution for a handful of promises and the trappings of power in the tiny remnants of Palestine flung to them by the imperialists. Now Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are being squeezed between, on the one hand, the increasingly aggressive demands of the US and their Israeli attack dogs, and, on the other hand, the unyielding demand for justice and liberation on the part of the Palestinian masses. Meanwhile Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Islamic fundamentalists feed like parasites on the growing disillusionment with Arafat to build up their own reactionary alternative of an Islamic theocratic regime.

The growing rage and disillusionment of the Palestinian masses at the failure of the peace process to bring a change to their lives and bring closer the moment of liberation has come at a crucial turning point in world politics. The US is facing economic crisis, and is using the September 11th events to lash out in an effort to extend its global domination and crush any semblance of opposition. They are jettisoning even the pretence of being an “honest broker” in the Middle East, a pose they adopted under Clinton, and are now urging their Israeli attack dog to strike with greater force. In recent weeks Israeli forces have occupied large parts of the West Bank and even Gaza and have used the network of settlements and military outposts to clamp down on all movement by Palestinians and to threaten the very existence of the Palestinian Authority. As Arafat and his cronies bitterly face reaping the terrible fruit of the capitulation they have sown, able to please neither the imperialist and Zionist overlords nor the angry masses, their former friends and backers, the social democrats of Europe and the reactionary sheiks and arrogant generals of the Arab world, have all suddenly discovered that silence is the better part of valour. It is no fun being a running dog for imperialism.

The struggle of the Palestinians is reaching a juncture. Arafat is less and less able to rein in popular resistance to the Israeli occupiers. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank provide a steady stream of people ready to die in the fight against Israel, and unprecedented rumblings of discontent are rising even from Palestinians within Israel, whom the Israelis arrogantly refer to as “Israeli Arabs” in a laughable attempt to distinguish them from their Palestinian kin. The Israelis have even floated plans for a system to impose total physical isolation on the Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem. The peace process itself lies in tatters. There is no end in sight for the path of kowtowing and capitulation embarked on by Arafat, while few are those who see in the attacks of the religious dinosaurs of the Islamic Hamas the path forward to liberation. The Zionists throw up the obviously reactionary features of their Islamic opponents to deride their claims to represent an alternative; but can anyone fail to note that there are few more exact counter-parts to the woman-hating, obscurantist features of the extreme Jewish fundamentalist parties at the core of the Zionist state than Hamas itself?

[DRAGOON]

The problem that has plagued the Palestinian revolution has never been a lack of courage. No, what the Palestinian revolution lacks is not courage but leaders who believe and understand that the Palestinian masses can be organized into a vanguard force that can actually take on and defeat the imperialist-backed Zionist military juggernaut on the field of battle – and then go about doing just this. The Maoists have always sided with the uncompromising struggle of the Palestinian people to rise up, guns in hand, and defeat the Zionist occupiers and on the ashes of the settler colonial state erect a red Palestine, a secular democratic state in which all the masses of Palestine have equal rights and together exercise genuine power. Many now deride this vision as “unrealistic”. Yet the practicality and realism invoked to justify accepting the imperialist-brokered peace process have led to nothing more than cloaking the continuing oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian people in new robes. Marx long ago remarked that the proletarians must go through a revolutionary war not only to overthrow the exploiting classes, but also to make themselves fit to rule. In Palestine too, the revolutionary war of liberation that will one day overthrow the US-backed Zionist state will be a cleansing fire that will burn away the scars and horrors that infect men’s souls, and what seems impossible in today’s world will become a real revolutionary power that will be a beacon to the world’s oppressed.

As the Palestinian people go forward into these stormy waters, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement once again reaffirms its unwavering support for their just cause, and calls on all revolutionary and progressive people to step up their actions on their behalf.

- The Information Bureau of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement 10 Feb 2002

For more information, write: BCM RIM / 27 Old Gloucester St / London WC1N 3XX / UK.

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

The only solution for palestine is unity between the workers of Israel and palestine. read http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/abumazen_resign.html

The maoist slogan nof people's war will just lead to more bloodsheed and the killing of more palestinians, as it have lead to so many other places. And as the suicide bombings already have lead too.

http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/israel_palestine0402.html

Israel know's this, which is also why they originally backed hamas against PFLP http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/hamas_0803.html

sorry for almost only posting links but am tired today.

[DRAGOON]

I do think that it would be important to win large sections of the Israeli population to support the right for the area to be a palestiniabn state. And I can see how the Israeli working class has the basis to recognize the need for this, and to support it. However bloodshed would not end in this area just because a section of the Israeli populatiopn publically came out in support of the Palestinian struggle.

The US imperialists desperately want Israel to exist their as an outpost for their empire. They will not allow a 'peaceful' destruction of Israel. (another way to put it be, a peaceful taking of power by the Palestinian people.)

Your arguement that they Palestinians should not wage revolution is, in essence a call for the Israeli gavernment to maintain its colonial state and conmtinue its wholesale attack on the Palestinian people.

The only option the Palestinians really have is to overthrow their oppressors. Not 'turn the other cheek, or give in.

You cannot overhrow an oppressor without violence. Exploiters and oppressors power stems from a gun and will fight with a gun.

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

Your arguement that they Palestinians should not wage revolution is, in essence a call for the Israeli gavernment to maintain its colonial state and conmtinue its wholesale attack on the Palestinian people.

So am saying they shouldn't make a revolution? Ehmm were did I say that? Did u read the articles at all? They are written by people who actually know something about the situation.
And u weren't talking about revolution but about people's war. And that isn't revolution just bloodsheed. Sometimes a revolution include violence and in palestine it very likely will. But that doesn't mean that communists should start an armed insurrection when the times are clearly not ripe. That will just led the cadres get killed as guerillaism has done EVERYWERE else. On the other hand I don't see the intifada as such, but that was not what u were talking about.

http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/intifada_update28Nov00.html

And here's one that deals with the 2 state theory.
http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/internationalist_perspective.html

on the intifada http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/on_the_tactics_of_the_intifada.html

[redjordi]

Hi Dragoon,

Originally posted by DRAGOON


You cannot overhrow an oppressor without violence. Exploiters and oppressors power stems from a gun and will fight with a gun.

the capitalist class rules not through direct violence but mainly through maintaining the oppressed divived, unorganised and stupidified. when a ruling class has to resort to naked force (ie the army and the police) to mantain its domination then it is in real trouble.

the first task of a revolutionary party is to win over a majority of the oppressed to its side, once that is done, the task is relatively easy. in fact the Russian revolution in October 1917 went largely peacefully because the bolsheviks had already won a majority in the soviets and through propaganda and agitation had also won a majority in the Petrograd garrison, so the capitalists had almost no one prepared to take arms to defend them.

the main task of the revolution is the preparatory political work, not so much the military work (though this is important).

comradely,

redjordi

[DRAGOON]

The only solution for palestine is unity between the workers of Israel and palestine. read The maoist slogan of people's war will just lead to more bloodsheed and the killing of more palestinians, as it have lead to so many other places. And as the suicide bombings already have lead too.

IMO I think its absolutely wrong to say he only solution for palestine if for unity between workers of Israel and Palestine. I think it puts primary what is not (though it would be nice to see). The solution in Palestine (IMO) is for the Palestinian people to continue to fight for freedom and self-determination, all the while developing the leadership, strategy and organizationn to win.

I think its important to look at what is being said accurately. Peoples war is revolution. there are different types of peoples wars, of course, the urban 'october road' is one and the protracted peoples war (like being waged now in Nepal) is another. The maoist slogan of revolution is exactly that, a revolutionaery slogan, one that is not bogged down by the refomrinsm of making peace with the oppressor.

IMO I also think that in Palestine right now there is a revolutionary situation. The masses of Palestinian people want a democratic government. They want their right to self-determination. And they want the occupying regime out. It is a media lie that only groups like hamas are fighting. In reality the masses themselves are fighting. Many times groups like Hamas try to 'pose' themselves as representing the masses, to in effect, win the leadership of the masses. This is a form of a priorism. (for those who wanna learn more about a priorism check out http://rwor.org/a/1202/bareach7.htM)

The problem is they currently have no revolutionary leadership, that I know of. Instead of targetting the armed forces of the Israeli state, too many times nonmilitary are targeted.

When you said "people's war will just lead to more bloodshed and the killing of more palestinians" I think its important to realize we cannot predict exactly how many people will be lost in such a heroic struggle. I also think its wrong to solely look at that when discussing revolution. Revolution is, in many ways, a reaction to oppression and exploitation. The fact that Palestinians are killed everyday seems unimportant in your statement. Lets not speculate, but lets also be clear, not fighting a revolution and winning, could lead to an even greater loss (in numbers of people and in the struggle of the proletariat) than you are talking about. In fact, all the loss that comes through such a struggle could, in the end, have prevented even greater loss.

Its important to learn from the Holocaust in relation to this. In reflection it is clear that the lack of resistance early on did not prevent massive loss and bloodshed, as sections of jewish community argued at that time. In fact its important to learn from this experience that it is important to actively resist.

a sidenote: but I find it interesting that you would have (seemingly) equated revolution with terrorism in the above quote.

So am saying they shouldn't make a revolution? Ehmm were did I say that? Did u read the articles at all? They are written by people who actually know something about the situation.

In this, yes you did. I was following your logic to its logical conclusion. The 'Do not fight because it will cause more bloodshed...' (not a quote) logic leads to puting off resistance until a magical moment when everyone is on the side of the revolution. In fact, its through revolutionary war that large sections of people are won to the side of revolution.

And u weren't talking about revolution but about people's war. And that isn't revolution just bloodsheed. Sometimes a revolution include violence and in palestine it very likely will. But that doesn't mean that communists should start an armed insurrection when the times are clearly not ripe. That will just led the cadres get killed as guerillaism has done EVERYWERE else. On the other hand I don't see the intifada as such, but that was not what u were talking about.

1. All revolutions are bloody. Peoples wars have been very successful and are not "just bloody", they are inspiring and liberating.
2. In Palestine today, armed struggle is ongoing. Revolution is in the air. The revolutinary leadership is missing. Not the peoples willingness to fight.
3. Guerillaism is a form of warfare. I am not speculating on what form the revolution should take in Palestine, I do not know, however Guerillaism is clearly not the solution, but may be a part of the solution. It's important to understand that the very lives, culture and land of the Palestinian people is under attack. The Palestinian areas are being surrounded by walls. Are you arguing that they wait until they are in a jail, or wait until an extermination campaign is underway?
4. The intifada is not a revolution, I agree. However in times when people are desperately loking at the question "what is the solution". Its important to be truthful. There will be no peace for the Palestinian people as long as the occupier state exists.  No matter what its people want, it is and will remain a lap dog for imperialism.

the capitalist class rules not through direct violence but mainly through maintaining the oppressed divived, unorganised and stupidified.

This may seem true in western European countries or the US, however this is in fact not true. The capitalist class always relies on direct violence. However in the 'democratic' countries they are able to hide this more from large sections of the middle-classes.
For example in the united states, there is an epidemic of policwe brutality and murder. This is not a sometimes thing, this is constant. There are no breaks from the routine brutality and killings of police, especially for poor people of color.

And in a country like Palestine the situation is even more clear and intense. They do rely first and foremost on their military to maintain order. They would also like to be able to rely on the Plaestinians themselves to play cop for Israel, and that is always a part of the "peace proposals".

when a ruling class has to resort to naked force (ie the army and the police) to mantain its domination then it is in real trouble.

the first task of a revolutionary party is to win over a majority of the oppressed to its side, once that is done, the task is relatively easy.

the first task is to be prepared to wage and win a revolution, but that does not mean the "majority" are needed. In fact the Russian revolution did not have the majority of the oppressed, until after it began the revolution. What is neede is an organization capable of unleashing such war, when the time is right. An organization with deep roots among the people and organized ties among them. One that can win large numbers, and hopefully(but not necessarily) the majority of the oppressed to its side.

in fact the Russian revolution in October 1917 went largely peacefully because the bolsheviks had already won a majority in the soviets and through propaganda and agitation had also won a majority in the Petrograd garrison, so the capitalists had almost no one prepared to take arms to defend them.

this is a lil oversimplified. in fact the main fighting had taken place earlier that year, and the new bougeois had not been able to secure power swift enough. The bolsheviks were able to however. But it wasn't easy. though there was little bloodshed in this round of the socialist revolution. Also keep in mind that during 1905 the bolsheviks had attempted to revolt, and been defeated. One of the main reasons for there quick defeat was the mensheviks who argue that "the time is not right" and dissuaded large areas from insurrecting. The apporach of putting revolution into never-never land, when the situation is perfect, is idealist and in an objective way a non-revolutionary line.

the main task of the revolution is the preparatory political work, not so much the military work (though this is important).

I do not really know whether I agree with this statement or not. What is needed is a more dialectical task than you have outlined here. And what you say here is vague. Fundamentally however I do not feel that I know exactly what is needed at this second. And in many ways that is why the staement above points out the need for a revolutionary Palestinian leadership. A leadership that can look at the objective situation over there and figure out how to go about defeating the Israeli military.

[redjordi]

Hi Dragoon,

It seems there are a few points in which we agree and some in which we disagree.

First I think no one denies the need for the revolutionary struggle of the Palestinian masses. What we disagree is in the methods proposed.

Second I think we all agree in the need for a revolutionary leadership of the Palestinian masses, and that the absence of this is the main reason why their struggle is blocked.

You talk about peoples' war and violence. This is a bit general. Would you like to elaborate on what do you thing would be the right methods that could lead their struggle to victory?

For my part I think that these methods need to combine the necessary armed struggle with the political struggle and they need to be useful for the aims that are sought. It is clear that for the Palestinian masses to win their national rights they must fight and defeat the reactionary machinery of the State of Israel. This is the most powerful military machine in the Middle East and has the backing and support of the US, which is the most powerful imperialist power on earth. The Palestinian masses have been fighting for a long time against it, so far with no success. Also there have been a number of wars between Arab countries and Israel in which the Arab countries have been soundly defeated.

In my opinion, the only way of defeating the Israeli capitalists is by undermining their basis of support amongst the Israeli Jewish workers. To do this tactics must be adopted which do not target Israeli civilians, but rather military targets exclusively. Suicide bombings are the understandable result of the desperation of many Palestinians faced with terrible oppresion. But they do not help to advance their struggle. It makes ordinary Jewish workers think that the Palestinians are against all of them, rather than being against the Israeli reactionary capitalist state. They actually strengthen the Israeli state.

In Israel there have been plenty of workers' strikes against the Israeli capitalist government, and even within the ranks of the Israeli army there is opposition to the war against Palestinians. The Palestinian revolutionaries must strive to link up with these workers and must use methods that increase the divisions within the Israeli army. They must be able to say to the ordinary Israeli workers "you are not our enemy, the Israeli capitalists are our enemy, and they are also your enemy, only if we get rid of them can we leave in peace and solve our problems".

The Palestinian masses have shown their willingness to fight. During the first intifada the Palestinian youth had the courage to face the Israeli tanks with stones and sticks. Democratic committees (soviets if you want) were set up. That first intifada had a massive impact withing Israel. It provocked divisions within the army and massive public opposition to the policies of the Israeli government. That was one of the factors that forced the ISraeli ruling class to make some (very limited) concessions in 1992.

It was certainly a pitty that the Palestinian youth did not have arms at that time. It was a crime of their leaders that they had to face the Israeli tanks and plans barehanded. All the groups who had been talking for a long time about armed struggle, and conducting in reality individual actions of kidnappings and bombings abroad, were not able to supply them with any weapons.

However the second intifada very soon adopted more militaristic methods. The militias and armed groups are not under the democratic control of the popular committees. And their tactics have turned towards suicide bombings against civilian targets.

The strategy for victory is one that combines a democratic leadership of the revolution, genuine armed struggle, a political outlook that appeals to ordinary Israeli workers to fight against their own capitalists, and an internationalist appeal to the Arab workers and youth to rise and overthrow their own governments.

Regarding violence, I stand by what I said, when a ruling class cannot rule but by naked force, it is in trouble. Look at Irak. I am totally convinced that the US does not like being and occupation force there. They would rather rule through a puppet government and a so-called democracy. But the opposition to their presence is so strong that they are forced to keep more than 100.000 troops. They are in trouble.

As far as the Russian Revolution is concerned, the taking of power was in fact largely peaceful, because the Bolsheviks had managed to politically win to their side the majority of the oppressed (as represented by the vote in the All Russian Congress of the Soviets) and the majority of the soldiers to their side.  This, is true, included creating workers armed militias and political work within the army. To the extent that they were very well armed and disarmed the ruling class the revolution was largely peaceful.

The Bolsheviks never advocated going into the countryside and starting some peoples' war. That was never Lenin's policy. Instead they relied on the strength of the organised working class in the cities as the main force for revolution (in an alliance with the peasantry). This seems to be the opposite of the Maoist approach.

comradely,

redjordi

[DRAGOON]

redjordi, thank you for your thoughtful post

indeed we do agree on many things, and overall what we agree on are some of the most important aspects of this situation. i see no need to reiterate what you said quite well.

however one of our disagreements is important and its important to get at what is right and wrong in it

In my opinion, the only way of defeating the Israeli capitalists is by undermining their basis of support amongst the Israeli Jewish workers.

I think the importance of removing this support would be monumental. However IMO there are two major problems with this. (1)You are putting this as the sole basis for defeating the Israeli regime. (2)You are not recognizing what the power of a state is based in.

To clarify our disagreement. You are arguing that the Jewish worker support of the state of Israel is the basis of their state power, and that without it, the Palestinian masses would be able to be free. On the other hand, I am arguing that the basis of the state of Israel is primarily based in their military power. That, in essence, 'political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'. And that the only way the Palestinians will be able to win the whole of their state is by crushing this force, and removing it from power.

The Palestinian people live in a combative situation. The masses are already fighting and any force that goes out there saying "put down your rocks and guns so we can get ready to fight" will be ignored, as they should be.

Another point, in the process of defeating the armed forces, militarily, the revolutionary Palestinian forces (including Israelis who join their ranks) will challenge the masses in Israel and its military. In the fight for liberation will the Palestinian struggle be able win the hearts and minds of the people of Israel, including sections of its military. The defeats suffered by the Israeli military will also lead to a lowered morale overall which will also aid in the degeneration  of its armed forces. However despite this the Palestinians can still win victory without the support of the Israeli working class.

The points I am making are
1...the Palestinian revolution cannot be organized in a vaccum.
2...to win support from the Israeli workers, revolution is necessary.
3...the Israeli working class is not fundamental in deciding the result of the Palestinian struggle, the Palestinian people are.

Regarding violence, I stand by what I said, when a ruling class cannot rule but by naked force, it is in trouble. Look at Irak. I am totally convinced that the US does not like being and occupation force there. They would rather rule through a puppet government and a so-called democracy. But the opposition to their presence is so strong that they are forced to keep more than 100.000 troops. They are in trouble.

ok, first I am glad that you seem to recognize where you were wrong when you said:

 the capitalist class rules not through direct violence but mainly through maintaining the oppressed divived, unorganised and stupidified.

I do agree with what you are saying. Mao pointed out that(paraphrase) 'it is good to be attacked by ones enemies, it means you are doing something right." However that does not necessarily translate that the capitalists are cloe to being defeated, or even seriously weakened (though when in this position the capitalists do still use naked aggression). In Palestine it points to a serious threat to their interests. The Palestinian struggle and its potential to develop into a revolution.

[DRAGOON]

SIDENOTES (in other words: not as important to the discussion) lol

As far as the Russian Revolution is concerned, the taking of power was in fact largely peaceful....

To the extent that they were very well armed and disarmed the ruling class the revolution was largely peaceful.

You are still skipping the Russian Revolution to overthrow the Czar. This was not peaceful.
The Russian ruling class did not just become 'disarmed' and th proletariat did not just become armed. There was struggle during the revolution and the Bolsjheviks won public opinion overall.

The Bolsheviks never advocated going into the countryside and starting some peoples' war. That was never Lenin's policy. Instead they relied on the strength of the organised working class in the cities as the main force for revolution (in an alliance with the peasantry). This seems to be the opposite of the Maoist approach.

No they didn't, thankfully. Lenin recognized the proletariat as the backbone of a socialist revolution. That it was the class consciousness that this class alone had the capability to achieve that was what was necessary to develop socialism. However he realized a couple of other things. Keep in mind, class-consciousness is not a given just because you are a worker. Lenin also struggle with revisionists and mensheviks to recognize the vital an important role of the peasantry as the number one ally of the proletariat. The hammer and sickle represent this vital unity between the proletariat and the peasantry.

In fact during the course of the great Chinese Revolution, the communists recognized that in that country where the economic structure was still predominately feudal and semi-feudal and where the proletariat as a class was brand new and tiny, that an 'october road' revolution was not yet possible, unless the proletariat grew. The Chinese Communist Party had initially tried to organize primarily among the proletariat that did exist, and won much support, however the reactionary nationalist Kuomintang crushed them and slaughtered cadre in the thousands.

Mao led that party to recognize that in such a country, where a revolutionary situation was almost always present, that the peasantry was the number one force with the ability to fight and win a revolution. This revolution is led by the ideology of proletariat and fought primarily by its chief ally, the peasantry.

Lenin and Mao pointed to the decisiveness of ideology as being key. This is important to grasp. Ideology as key, not 'class background'.

Perfect example. Lenin was meeting with a German revisionist. During this a now famous exchange was had. The German said to Lenin (paraphrased) 'Who are you to tell me what is proletarian ideology? You were born in the middle class, while I was born a worker.'
To this Lenin replied (paraphrase) , 'Then we both sold-out out our class'

[redjordi]

Hi Dragoon,

I am glad we can narrow down the differences and discuss these in more detail.

You say:

1...the Palestinian revolution cannot be organized in a vaccum.

That does not mean much so I guess we can all agree.

2...to win support from the Israeli workers, revolution is necessary

i agree, but I would add that in order to win this support the right tactics and methods must be used

3...the Israeli working class is not fundamental in deciding the result of the Palestinian struggle, the Palestinian people are.

this is where i think the main difference lies.

I argue that unless the workers in Israel are won over to a the revolutionary struggle, this cannot defeat the military might of the state of Israel. and for this the right programme is needed. the Israeli workers have lived in Israel now for a number of decades and have nowhere else to go. if the Palestinian masses struggle under the idea of driving the Jews into the sea, then this would unite Israeli workers and capitalists into one mass which will fight for its own survival.

If the Palestinian masses struggle under a socialist and internationalist perspective then their movement can link up with a revolutionary struggle of the Israeli Jewish workers. if the ruling class in Israel is faced with revolution by its own working class then the military might of the state can be defeated.

the strength of the Israeli state lies in its weapons, but these are also used by ordinary men and women. a revolutionary struggle in order to win cannot be mainly or even primarily military, it must be above all political. the Soviets after 1917 defeated 21 foreign armies of intervention despite the fact that the military strength of the Soviets was very limited (though Trotsky played an excellent role as the organiser of the Red Army). They won mainly through political means, with political appeals and propaganda amongst the troops of imperialist countries (many of whom mutinied and refused to fight) and by revolutionary action of the workers of those countries (who blacked shipments of arms and took strike action against intervention against soviet russia).

comradely,

redjordi

[redjordi]

ON THE SIDENOTES:

Lenin recognized the proletariat as the backbone of a socialist revolution. That it was the class consciousness that this class alone had the capability to achieve that was what was necessary to develop socialism. However he realized a couple of other things. Keep in mind, class-consciousness is not a given just because you are a worker. Lenin also struggle with revisionists and mensheviks to recognize the vital an important role of the peasantry as the number one ally of the proletariat. The hammer and sickle represent this vital unity between the proletariat and the peasantry.

The policy of Mao on the other hand was to base himself on the peasantry in the countryside and this is what the whole policy of Maoism is based upon.

Now, you can try to argue that the social and economic composition of China was different from that of Russia. I disagree. Both countries were backward capitalist countries in which the countryside was still largely feudal and the working class was quite small.

In fact during the course of the great Chinese Revolution, the communists recognized that in that country where the economic structure was still predominately feudal and semi-feudal and where the proletariat as a class was brand new and tiny, that an 'october road' revolution was not yet possible, unless the proletariat grew. The Chinese Communist Party had initially tried to organize primarily among the proletariat that did exist, and won much support, however the reactionary nationalist Kuomintang crushed them and slaughtered cadre in the thousands.

The proletariat in Russia was also brand new and tiny. In fact when the Russian Marxists first started to organise, at the end of the XIX century, their main basis was precisely the polemic against the populists and other revolutionaries who thought that revolution would come from the peasantry and dismissed the working class. In a sense that was a polemic against the same ideas Maoists are putting forward today in countries like, say, Peru or the Philipinnes.

It is true that the CCP originally organised (correctly) amongst the workers and it won great strength. They were slaughtered because of the wrong tactics imposed by Stalin's Comintern on the party, namely the alliance with the bourgeois nationalist Kuomintang. The CCP was instructed to disolve itself within the KMT and the KMT leaders were invited to meetings of the Comintern and paraded in front of the Chinese workers as genuine anti-imperialists and revolutionary fighters. Obviously, as soon as they gained enough strength, the KMT moved against the workers and the Communists and smashed them.

Finally, what is your opinion about people's war in Palestine. Is it supposed to be based on the peasantry and then encircle the cities? What peasantry? What cities?

comradely,

redjordi

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

ok I can see yr view is a bit better than I thought but that was hard reading from the article.
I agree with jordi but I have a few points.

In this, yes you did. I was following your logic to its logical conclusion. The 'Do not fight because it will cause more bloodshed...' (not a quote) logic leads to puting off resistance until a magical moment when everyone is on the side of the revolution. In fact, its through revolutionary war that large sections of people are won to the side of revolution.

No what I was saying was that the palestinians can't defeat Israel by waging a war, as in palestine against israel. I think the history of the conflict shows that. Israel is clearly stronger so it will lead nowere. As jordi pointed out the solution lies in the unity of the palestinian workers and the israeli workers. Attacks against civilians clearly undermines this.

The Palestinian areas are being surrounded by walls. Are you arguing that they wait until they are in a jail, or wait until an extermination campaign is underway?

No of course not, but the palestinian workers can't fight against that alone. They need the israeli workers too.
How do u think the palestinians would be able to get rid of the wall? By waging war on Israel?
I hope u took the time to read some of the articles.
Anyway I have to split, but I think the problems of the tactics u propose comes from the genneral problem of maoism. That it first of all base itself on the peasentry. And that maoism was an ideology "invented" after the killing of the workercadres because of the betrayal of the leadership, Stalin etc. But this is another discussion.
Comradely
Teis

[DRAGOON]

Time is constrainingme today, so let me throw out some quick things, I will try to reply more fully when the opportunity opens up.

Israel is clearly stronger so it will lead nowere.

note: this is talking about a Palestinian Revolution..

This is an important factor to dig into. I most certainly think that a war can be won against a stronger army. In fact I think there is a lot of history to back up what I am saying. Most significantly the Chinese revolution and the ongoing revolution in Nepal today, however history is filled with forces that had to 'come from behind' to make revolution. Indeed those revolutionaries in Palestine will have to do exactly that.

Finally, what is your opinion about people's war in Palestine. Is it supposed to be based on the peasantry and then encircle the cities? What peasantry? What cities?

I am sure that the answer is very complex and that I do not know what all will be involved.

However I do see the struggle as, at this point, primarily a national liberation struggle, not primarily a socialist struggle. I do believe that the Palestinian people can defeat the Israeli army. And I do not think that the only ideology that can lead that such a victory is a communist ideology, even though that is the most favourable situation.

Among other reasons, this is one reason why I see the Palestinian people themselves as more important, more decisive, in this struggle, than the Israeli working class.

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

This is an important factor to dig into. I most certainly think that a war can be won against a stronger army. In fact I think there is a lot of history to back up what I am saying. Most significantly the Chinese revolution and the ongoing revolution in Nepal today,

Well if we look at the situation in Palestine it is quite different. Israel has all the opportunities to crush them if they so desire. Unlike in china or in nepal they really don't have so many places to hide. This is just one among many of the good reasons why the palestinians need the Israeli workers. Israel is not going to give up without pressure from it's own proletariat.
A short note is I don't think the fight in Nepal is so succesfull but that's another discussion.

However I do see the struggle as, at this point, primarily a national liberation struggle, not primarily a socialist struggle. I do believe that the Palestinian people can defeat the Israeli army. And I do not think that the only ideology that can lead that such a victory is a communist ideology, even though that is the most favourable situation.

Well that wouldn't really give the palestinians any real independence. Under capitalism independence don't exist for the ex-colonial people. Also deafeating Israel wouldn't really solve the question since we would just have the opposite situation from what we have now.

Here's some quotes by Fred Weston on the subject. The full article can be found here: http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/Israel_Palestine_historical.html

Oslo laid the basis for the building of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and the West Bank, with the idea that this should become a state for the Palestinians. Some maintain that this acceptance of the idea of two states was only due to the low ebb of the movement and the weakness of the Palestinians at the time and that in the future they would return to demand a unified state, and furthermore we should support this demand for one state.

We have to pose the question: would an upturn in the movement of the Palestinians lead them once more to demand a single unitary state in all of ancient Palestine, i.e. go back to the 1969 Palestinian Covenant? The fact is that the Palestinians have not been calling for one state for some time, as we have shown above. But should we support the demand for one state? On a capitalist basis obviously not. The latest Intifada has achieved nothing. The Palestinians have been smashed by the Israeli army. Militarily the Palestinians cannot defeat the state of Israel. It is a powerful imperialist force, with one of the most modern and efficient military machines. In the face of this giant the Palestinian people are certainly not calling for a unified state. Furthermore if they did pose this demand, how would they achieve it? How would they impose it on the Jews in Israel?

As things stand now the Jews in Israel would not consent to the establishment of one unified state on a capitalist basis. They would feel threatened by the Palestinians. There is too much animosity and ill feeling for this to happen now. And on a capitalist basis it would be a complete utopia to think that this would be possible. On the other hand the ordinary Palestinian people are tired and war weary. They want to get on with their lives, have a home and job. The present situation is depriving them of even the most elementary requirements for a civilised existence. Eighty per cent of the economy on the West Bank and Gaza depends on Israel. Now the Palestinians cannot travel into Israel where many of them worked. Many are owed months and years of wages from their former Israeli employers. They are looking for a solution to these problems and no one is offering them a way out.

There remains the problem of the refugees, who have the right to return to a homeland. However, it could not be posed as simply a return to exactly the same lands and houses they owned before 1948. A whole nation now inhabits Israel and has been there for several generations. Within the limits of a capitalist Israel and a capitalist Palestine there would not be enough houses, jobs, social services for all. Inevitably some would lose out. In this context if 4 million Palestinian refugees were to return to their former lands the Jewish population would feel swamped. The Israeli ruling class would use this to foment hostility between the two peoples and that explains why the Jews in Israel would never accept this, on a capitalist basis.

Posed before the perspective of becoming a discriminated minority within a unified capitalist state, the Jews would fight. Even on a socialist basis we would have to take into consideration past experiences, i.e. the fact that animosity and mistrust dominate. We also have to take into account that there are two nations here, the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians, with different histories, languages, cultures and outlook. We have to take into account and understand that even on a socialist basis there would have to be autonomy both for the Jews of Israel and the Palestinians. They would have to feel that they had a safe territory in which to live peacefully. A socialist federation would thus have to give guarantees to all the peoples of the Middle East, especially the minorities.

We can learn from the experience of Russia after 1917. Prior to the revolution there had been terrible conflicts between the Armenians and the Azeris, with pogroms in Baku, etc. On the basis of the workers coming to power two socialist republics were set up within the overall federation of the USSR. Each nation had its own territory, but once the threat of national oppression was removed it was no longer an issue. The same happened in Yugoslavia (even without a genuine socialist regime). After the coming to power of Tito, a federal republic was set up with recognised territories for the Serbs, the Croats, etc. Of course a perfect separation of the peoples is never possible [nor is it desirable from a socialist point of view]. There will always be minorities. These minorities have to have the same rights as all the other people living in the same territory. However, in the ex-Yugoslavia the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, etc., had a territory they could regard as their own. On the basis of economic development of about 10% per year over a period the national antagonisms were broken down and for decades the different peoples could live together with a free movement of peoples across the whole of the ex-Yugoslavia. The borders between the different republics were open. Unfortunately, on the basis of the economic crisis, which flowed from the stranglehold of the bureaucracy, all the old problems re-emerged. With unemployment rising, high inflation and a general worsening of the economic conditions all the old ethnic conflicts were resurrected and used by the local elite within each nationality. However, the previous period (in spite of the bureaucratic deformations of the old regime) gives us a glimpse of how a solution to ethnic conflicts can be found through economic development and rights for all the peoples.

Therefore, basing ourselves on these historical examples, we would call for a federal structure in present day Israel/Palestine with autonomy for the Jews and the Palestinians, with Jerusalem as the capital of both areas, within a wider Socialist Federation of the whole of the Middle East. This would inevitably involve closing most of the settlements and redrawing the territories that would be allotted to both nations (parts of present day Israel are predominantly Palestinian). Two separate territories would have to be worked out. Again, it would not be possible to have two totally homogeneous territories. There would be minorities on both sides, and these would be granted the same rights as everyone else, with no discrimination. A viable state for the Palestinians could be built out of the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan (where 60% of the population is Palestinian!), together with any parts of present-day Israel that could be feasibly integrated into such a sate.

All this could only be achieved on the basis of a socialist revolution with the workers coming to power in the whole region. On the basis of such a revolution the workers could amicably and fraternally solve these problems. A federal state would imply autonomy for each people in the running of their own affairs, the right to use their own language, respect for all religious beliefs, etc. There would be economic co-operation between the different autonomous groups who would take part in the development of one overall plan for the whole region. And of course there would be the free movement of peoples across the boundaries between the different autonomous regions.

The idea of establishing two states on a capitalist basis is a reactionary utopia, just as one capitalist state would be. Two totally independent states based on capitalism will never come about. The Israeli ruling class will not permit this. The solution to the problem can only come about through the overthrow of Israeli capitalism and the overthrow of the surrounding despotic Arab regimes: that is, through a revolutionary policy that is capable of uniting the Jewish and Arab working class against their common enemy.