Palestine: Which faction do the Left Support?

[belboid]

no one is saying you shouldn't criticise them.

 

[treelover]

Maybe not as the SWP , but they certainly do as one of their fronts or 'brands': the STWC, as the post from Harry T I reposted on P/P argues, have the ability to set much of the parameters of the debate, eg 'troops out in Iraq', instead of supporting the Iraqi TU's and other progressive forces.

I'm not sure which is funnier, the notion that the SWP has significant (ie influential) forces, or that this comment is coming from someone considering voting tory!

 

[Fruitloop]

surely we lend it to the Palestinian people? Who they elect is up to them. The EU and the US decided that it wasnt up to them and so withheld aid on the basis that the cheeky Palestinians had voted for someone they didnt like. What good did that do? it only seems to have strengthened Hamas, and made fatah seem even more like american stooges.

So, basically, yes - Hamas won, they were the choice of the Palestinians, so if we want to support the palestinians we should support their choices.

Yeah but Blair was apparently the choice of the British, and he's a murdering fuckface.

 

[belboid]

progressive forces? Like siding with the occupiers? hmm, I wonder why they wouldn't want to support that.

 

[belboid]

Yeah but Blair was apparently the choice of the British, and he's a murdering fuckface.

as WE elected him (well, I daresay we didnt personally, but you know what I mean) our 'rights' to remove him are obviously rather different to our 'rights' to say who should be supported in Palestine. And as Tom said, were Blair to have been removed in a right-wing coup in 97, or even 06, then as a defender of democracy it would have been right to demand his return to office.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

surely we lend it to the Palestinian people? Who they elect is up to them. The EU and the US decided that it wasnt up to them and so withheld aid on the basis that the cheeky Palestinians had voted for someone they didnt like. What good did that do? it only seems to have strengthened Hamas, and made fatah seem even more like american stooges.

So, basically, yes - Hamas won, they were the choice of the Palestinians, so if we want to support the palestinians we should support their choices.

The problem is Hamas got in on a protest vote over Fatah corruption. Its not so much that they made the wrong choice but they made a bad choice which will rebound on the Palestinians sadly. I also hope that the Israelis look at what their politicians are proposing and make better choices for themselves as well.

Hopefully, the increased support from the US etc to the Fatah government may move things forward. I do hope Israel does the brave thing and sits down with Fatah. If Israel fucks this up then it will be a long time if ever will their be an opportunity for a peace settlement that means that Israel can feel secure and meaningful compensation coupled by a massive reconstruction programme for the Palestinians in the West Bank. Not quite sure what can be done about Gaza its not viable (apart from gas reserves) as a separate state and it will be cut off from the majority of what will in all reality become Palestine on the West Bank. Maybe Egypt, Palestine and Israel could share soverignty.

I do hope that Israel takes up the Olive branch rather than the gun on this one. However, if Israel offers a settlement that is generous and Fatah refuse it then it will just mean more injustice and more suffering for a people who have been pushed from pillar to post and not just by the Israelis.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

surely we lend it to the Palestinian people? Who they elect is up to them. The EU and the US decided that it wasnt up to them and so withheld aid on the basis that the cheeky Palestinians had voted for someone they didnt like. What good did that do? it only seems to have strengthened Hamas, and made fatah seem even more like american stooges.

So, basically, yes - Hamas won, they were the choice of the Palestinians, so if we want to support the palestinians we should support their choices.

So when the old CPSA union used to elect a 'moderate' majority to its executive, the various left groups should have recognised the will of the 'CPSA people' and supported Chambers et al. Obviously not. The point being that those left groups decided to prioritise their support for some of their beliefs re. trade union militancy, over and above their belief in democracy expressed through the ballot box. Hamas's democratic legitimacy does not excuse a left group from explaining why it chooses to support a group whose policies they would find objectionable if they had to submit to them. I haven't yet seen a convincing explanation for this choice; 'our enemies enemy is our friend' isn't a convincing explanation...it's an excuse for a pose.

cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. what about all those Palestinians who supportrd and still support Fatah; perhaps we should support Hamas in Gazza and Fatah on the West Bank?

 

[belboid]

Hopefully, the increased support from the US etc to the Fatah government may move things forward.

not a chance in hell

 

[belboid]

So when the old CPSA union used to elect a 'moderate' majority to its executive, the various left groups should have recognised the will of the 'CPSA people' and supported Chambers et al. Obviously not. The point being that those left groups decided to prioritise their support for some of their beliefs re. trade union militancy, over and above their belief in democracy expressed through the ballot box. Hamas's democratic legitimacy does not excuse a left group from explaining why it chooses to support a group whose policies they would find objectionable if they had to submit to them. I haven't yet seen a convincing explanation for this choice; 'our enemies enemy is our friend' isn't a convincing explanation...it's an excuse for a pose.

cheers - Louis MacNeice

were we in Palestine it would be a somewhat different matter, but, as I said above, where we actually live we prioritise specific actions to defend our interests. that would mean, in your example, opposing specific calls (or more likely failure to issue calls) from the CPSA leadership - but we wouldn't be calling for them to be immediately removed from office, would we?

likewise, we should defend the right of people to make their own choices (ie elect a Hamas government), and then call for concrete action to ensure that that government cannot get away with anything reactionary. thats not a question of 'my enemies enemy' at all.

p.s. what about all those Palestinians who supportrd and still support Fatah; perhaps we should support Hamas in Gazza and Fatah on the West Bank?

We are talking about the occupied territories as a whole tho arent we? In which case hamas won. And lets be honest, the decision by Abbas to install a government without any hamas members is likely to backfire isnt it? And only strengthen their support?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

not a chance in hell

But it may well mean that Israel has less reason not to talk. If Fatah approach then this approach should be given serious consideration.

BTW the way the Israeli's cut off from Hamas after the election is no different from the main restriction on political parties within Israel proper which is no party can stand if it promulgates policies that say that state of Israel shouldn't exist.

 

[belboid]

so? Thats just another of their restrictions on democracy, hardly a good thing.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

so? Thats just another of their restrictions on democracy, hardly a good thing.

I think for historical reasons there is this restriction and I can understand why it is there. Maybe if things become more secure for Israel then this sort of restriction can be dropped.

However, there are always some restrictions on democracy and free speech. You don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre is the analogy I go for.

 

[belboid]

dont we all?

However, it is simply an excuse on behalf of the Israeli state to try and determine who the Palestinians elect. they have no right to do such a thing.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

dont we all?

However, it is simply an excuse on behalf of the Israeli state to try and determine who the Palestinians elect. they have no right to do such a thing.

I don't blame the Israeli's for not wanting to talk with an organisation that wants their destruction. Its not the same as the British Govt refusing to talk to Sinn Fein as SF were not campaigning for the destruction of the British state and its replacement by a Catholic fundmentalist state. They were basically wanting a united Ireland which is a different kettle of fish.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

were we in Palestine it would be a somewhat different matter, but, as I said above, where we actually live we prioritise specific actions to defend our interests. that would mean, in your example, opposing specific calls (or more likely failure to issue calls) from the CPSA leadership - but we wouldn't be calling for them to be immediately removed from office, would we?

likewise, we should defend the right of people to make their own choices (ie elect a Hamas government), and then call for concrete action to ensure that that government cannot get away with anything reactionary. thats not a question of 'my enemies enemy' at all.


We are talking about the occupied territories as a whole tho arent we? In which case hamas won. And lets be honest, the decision by Abbas to install a government without any hamas members is likely to backfire isnt it? And only strengthen their support?

The CPSA analogy holds good because no left group had the majority of its members in the union; so all the calls in their various publications for this or that were being effectively made from outside the union. It never stopped such 'anti-democratic' calls being made.

As for what follows, I had forgotten just how silly 'critical support' could be; so we support the election of a Hamas govt but they musn't do anything reactionary. Given that there is no way for the UK left to have a genuine impact on the behaviour of the Hamas administration, it's just as well they also can't be held culpable in its election..it's all just rrrevolutionary grandstanding for party purposes, not for the needs of working class Palestinians.

Finally, if you were in Fatah's position would you hand over the West Bank to Hamas, or attempt to secure it against them; these seem to be the available options?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I think I prefered the old style SWP delusion of Neither Washington nor Moscow, to their new style day dreaming of a progressive Hamas.(copyright DU)

 

[belboid]

The CPSA analogy holds good because no left group had the majority of its members in the union; so all the calls in their various publications for this or that were being effectively made from outside the union. It never stopped such 'anti-democratic' calls being made.

its not clear what point you are making here Louis.

As for what follows, I had forgotten just how silly 'critical support' could be; so we support the election of a Hamas govt but they musn't do anything reactionary. Given that there is no way for the UK left to have a genuine impact on the behaviour of the Hamas administration, it's just as well they also can't be held culpable in its election..it's all just rrrevolutionary grandstanding for party purposes, not for the needs of working class Palestinians.

no Louis, its called being a consistent democrat. i am not Palestinian so I have no say over who governs. That is a matter for the Palestinian people, and they made a choice. We can of course question exactly why they made that choice, and whether it is one they would stick to when circumstances change, but they did make that choice, and their rights should be defended. If you dont do so, you are no democrat.

Now why did they vote Hamas? As KJ says, one reason was fatah corruption, another was the solid practical grassroots work they did - work that none of us would have opposed (establishing some kind of a welfare network for instance). When they are doing that, we wouldnt have a problem going 'fair enough' would we? But then there is the (yet to be implemented) reactionary side of their programme. That should be opposed. there is no contradiction or grandstanding involved at all.

Finally, if you were in Fatah's position would you hand over the West Bank to Hamas, or attempt to secure it against them; these seem to be the available options?

Louis MacNeice

i'd attempt to make a peace with them, thats the best way forward. But of course if I were Fatah I would be defending the ground where we had support, that is perfectly consistent. And Hamas havent attempted to wrest control in the WB - tho I grant you they may well consider it (a very risky venture if they do tho, so I'd imagine they'll stay where they are and consolidate in Gaza)

p.s. I think I prefered the old style SWP delusion of Neither Washington nor Moscow, to their new style day dreaming of a progressive Hamas.(copyright DU)

i imagine even the SWP must be embarrassed by the idiocies that DU comes out with

 

[Louis MacNeice]

its not clear what point you are making here Louis....

...no Louis, its called being a consistent democrat. i am not Palestinian so I have no say over who governs.

When you were in the SWP (or which ever group) and one of you members came along to the branch meeting, fuming against the latest 'sell out' by the 'moderate' CPSA leadership and seeking assitance to campaign against that leadership you didn't turn around and say, 'I am not a CPSA member so I have no say over who leads the CPSA'. No you got out the letraset and started cutting and pasting a leaflet that lambasted the sell out, called for the removal of the leadership and railed against the fleetstreet interferance with the electoral processes of the union. My point is that you (as a stand in for the entire left mind you!) are not a consistent democrat. And if being a consistent democrat isn't the reason fro supporting Hamas then what is; somewhat ironically at least DU has another reason...albeit a wrong one.


Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[belboid]

Well, whether or not the SWP are or were consistent democrats is of no concern to me, but, you have a point anyway - just a wrong one.

The CPSA analogy doesnt hold up because the CPSA leadership werent being removed and threatened and having their funding withdrawn by,mm, I'm not quite sure who the analagous group would be to Israel & the US here, the TUC and tory government of the day? If that were happening, then surely we would have defended the CPSA leadership, no matter how much we disagreed with it. that doesn't mean you have to go along with everything that that leadership comes out with, far from it. And as for the writing of the leaflet, even if I werent a member, well, I would make sure that the leaflet was written by members, otherwise it would sound and (most likely) read like shit. So there would be 'palestinian' involvement. I also dont recall there ever being a call for a leadership, even a shitty one, to be removed, except through agreed practises and union procedures, an eventuality which isn't exactly being followed in the OT's.

 

[Spion]

a peace settlement that means that Israel can feel secure

i really don't understand why a state based on theft on a massive scale should feel secure. it's like me nicking your house, dumping you behind a fence in a square metre of the garden then complaining I don't feel secure when you start to kick off about it. It's sick

 

[KeyboardJockey]

i really don't understand why a state based on theft on a massive scale should feel secure. it's like me nicking your house, dumping you behind a fence in a square metre of the garden then complaining I don't feel secure when you start to kick off about it. It's sick

It wasn't 'based on theft' it was an international agreement, arab landlords quite happily sold land to Jewish settlers for a fair price unfortunately the arab landlords kicked off a lot of arab tenant farmers in many cases. Where I have problems is with the occupied territories. Don't forget at the creation of the state of Israel there were atrocities on both sides.

 

[belboid]

ffs! and fuck right off. there was a fucking war of terror by the future israeli PM to rid the area of the 'dogs' as they called arabs. Israel was estabvlished solely through terror, and then with the contrivance of a shitty international body that wanted to ensure they (france & the uk initially as much as the usa) had an outpost they could rely on in the middle-east.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

ffs! and fuck right off. there was a fucking war of terror by the future israeli PM to rid the area of the 'dogs' as they called arabs. Israel was estabvlished solely through terror, and then with the contrivance of a shitty international body that wanted to ensure they (france & the uk initially as much as the usa) had an outpost they could rely on in the middle-east.

I still think that Israel has a right to exist though. I would prefer that it lived in peace with its neighbours. Yes its fucked up but what state hasn't, look at Britain for instance.

I'm not denying that there were elements in the groups around at the time of the creation of the state of Israel who had less than perfect attitudes to arabs its wrong and needs to be righted in some way although not in my opinion by the disaster which would befall millions of people by the imposition of a one state solution.

 

[Spion]

the disaster which would befall millions of people by the imposition of a one state solution.

well, there are millions of palestinian refugees who'd like to go to the lands they were booted out of. The way I see it, in the medium to long term Israel can do the right thing and allow them to return (as UN resolutions specify, and as they allow their 'own' people) or they can do it the hard way. I suspect they'll choose the latter, because at core they are ruled by a nasty clique of central europeans who learnt their key lessons in life from the Nazis

 

[likesfish]

hamas and fatah not a lot to chose between them.
eu does'nt have to give them any aid if they don't want to they have no right to aid

 

[KeyboardJockey]

well, there are millions of palestinian refugees who'd like to go to the lands they were booted out of. The way I see it, in the medium to long term Israel can do the right thing and allow them to return (as UN resolutions specify, and as they allow their 'own' people) or they can do it the hard way. I suspect they'll choose the latter, because at core they are ruled by a nasty clique of central europeans who learnt their key lessons in life from the Nazis

And what about the current inhabitants of Israel the majority of whom had nothing to do with any oppression of Arabs? Would you propose the Hamas option of pushing them into the sea? Re the Palestinian refugees they do need compensation but not at the expense of the Israelis. A more secure Israel would have less need to spend as much on defence and should be encouraged forcefully to invest in infrastructrure in the new state of Palestine on the West Bank.

 

[belboid]

Well, they do have something to do with it actually, a fair few of htem have blatantly nicked palestinian land for one thing! Why should palestinian refugee's only be allowed 'compensation'? And why not from the people who actually gained from their expulsion??!!

give all refugee's the right of return and the right to vote and who cares what the country is called, everyone could live happily ever after.

 

[belboid]

I don't blame the Israeli's for not wanting to talk with an organisation that wants their destruction. Its not the same as the British Govt refusing to talk to Sinn Fein as SF were not campaigning for the destruction of the British state and its replacement by a Catholic fundmentalist state. They were basically wanting a united Ireland which is a different kettle of fish.

btw, this is balderdash too - Israel doesn't refuse to talk to Hamas because of their 'Islamism', its because they want a single unified Palestinian state - not unlike Sinn Fein. If the PLO returned to a one state position, they would be cast out too.

 

[Spion]

And what about the current inhabitants of Israel the majority of whom had nothing to do with any oppression of Arabs? Would you propose the Hamas option of pushing them into the sea?

Of course not, you silly arse

Re the Palestinian refugees they do need compensation but not at the expense of the Israelis.

The Palestinian refugees have paid for generations for their forcible expulsion. The only solution is a single democratic state, which to work would need massive resources pumped in. I don't care whose expense it's at, but the US funds the Israelis massively already and should shoulder the burder for funding every Palestinian to the same tune per head

A more secure Israel would have less need to spend as much on defence and should be encouraged forcefully to invest in infrastructrure in the new state of Palestine on the West Bank.

israel will never be secure until the fundamental injustice of the land theft is addressed

 

[KeyboardJockey]

btw, this is balderdash too - Israel doesn't refuse to talk to Hamas because of their 'Islamism', its because they want a single unified Palestinian state - not unlike Sinn Fein. If the PLO returned to a one state position, they would be cast out too.

The particular path of Islamism that the Hamas terrorists propose includes most strongly the denial of Israels right to exist. If someone said I'll talk to you but I reserve the right to kill you with suicide bombs would you sit down and talk? I wouldn't I'd want to keep such people as far away as possible.

Hamas did have opportunities to have channels of communication but didn't use them.

 

[belboid]

not that different to what Sinn fein were doing (ie supporting a bombing campaign) or what the PLO before them did. It is nothing to do with the religious aspect, it was to do with the fact that they oppose the existence of Israel. At least accept that straight forward truth. And if they dont want to talk with Hamas, fine, but then they cant blame Hamas for responding by more suicide bombs. Cutting off nose to spite their face - seems to be a favourite occupation of yours!

And Hamas' 'channels' were to drop their one state policy! I wonder why they didnt accept?