StWC bans HOPI

[cockneyrebel]

But that’s my issue, how do you get the ear of the Jewish working class? And I have to say that at the moment, while the Israeli economy is ticking along, it’s all but impossible because their privileged standard of living is dependent on maintaining an apartheid state which in turn is dependent on the military technology of the USA, and to a lesser extent (but still significant) the financial backing.

It will only be in times when Israel is in economic trouble that this will change, and at that point the class conflict, rather than the racial conflict, will come to the fore. So basically before this point the demand for two capitalist states is pointless and something the Israeli ruling class will never allow. But what about two socialist states? As said, do you really think that by the time it got to the point where workers were fighting for socialism that they’d still want two states, that makes no sense to me.

Also, if the right of return was allowed then a Jewish majority state would be totally impossible anyway, so that alone makes it meaningless.

There is also the issue that in such a small land space, with so few resources whether it would even be remotely viable to have two states.

 

[Das Uberdog]

One big problem is that the mere existance of Israel is an economic anomaly - it shouldn't exist. The economy is propped up almost entirely on US aid (I think officially US aid accounts for a whole 10% of Israel's entire economy) and the people of Israel are living on an artificially luxurious level (for their region and general productivity, etc). Marxism has always been self-interested. It's the self-interest of the working classes as much as any ideals for a better world which lead the workers to see a common interest in forming alliances, and which develops class-consciousness. Part ofthe problem for the left in the Middle-East is that the normal rules of capitalism aren't really relavent any more. The territories of Palestine are almost entirely funded through aid and there's incredibly high unemployment - a working class without any workbase. Then in Israel there's a situation where the Israeli civilians see that it's in their own self-interests (materially) to immediately support the further annexation of Palestinean territory - seizing aquafers which lower their water bills and land upon which to build cheap houses, etcetera. At least that's how I've grasped the situation...

 

[cockneyrebel]

The aid is important, but more than that it's the military technology and military hardware. Without it Israel wouldn't of and would not survive.

 

[chilango]

...on class and resistance movemnts...

a while back I posted some info on the class composition of Hamas (from anthropoligical studies) that indicated that Hamas (and the Islamic Jihad) were notably of a higher social class than yer "average" Palestinian.

How (if at all) does this affect the left's orientation towards these groups?

Can I also point people towrds Midnight Notes' excellent work on the region (especially Midnight Oil)

 

[dennisr]

But that’s my issue, how do you get the ear of the Jewish working class? And I have to say that at the moment, while the Israeli economy is ticking along, it’s all but impossible because their privileged standard of living is dependent on maintaining an apartheid state which in turn is dependent on the military technology of the USA, and to a lesser extent (but still significant) the financial backing.

Not by telling them they should be driven into the sea - thats for certain. The point about piviledge could be applied to the all manner of sections of the world working class - does not change the simple fact that thy exist in the place they do and cannot be wished away.

Funny you mention aparheid - its a good example - The old SACTU and COSATU union federations in SA made a point of never closing unions off to the white minority there - despite the miniscule percentage of the population they represented (therefore a slightly different case which one cannot directly compare, but, nethertheless...). There were eminently sensible reasons for that - partly propaganda (and counter-propaganda to the lies of the apartheid state), partly self education (emphesising class as opposed to nationalist demands), partly as a way of assisting any possible splits within white rule of the apartheid state. They were right to do so. (one of my then friends became the first white member - as an honorary member during the miners strike)

But what about two socialist states? As said, do you really think that by the time it got to the point where workers were fighting for socialism that they’d still want two states, that makes no sense to me.

Realisation of the limits of any state would only come out of the act of a united struggle itself. I don't imagine it would be an issue if things had reached the level required to make them possible (but would not prescribe such) but, as a propaganda point countering state initiated fear the demand plays a role in being able to approach those workers. The same reason we would support the call for an independent scotland - if it was a mass demand - while pointing out the limitations and linking that demand to a scottish workers programme (arguing that the main 'task' is unity in struggle with non-scottish workers of course..). The same reason the bolcheviks accepted the experiment of the jewish workers state in russia (fucked though it was by later events..) - the right of nations to self -determination. It was the only way in which those people could begin to see that a workers government recognised how they had experienced oppression and would support and defend their rights. it is a transitional demand - not a presentation of the 'one true way forward' in the view of the CWI

Also, if the right of return was allowed then a Jewish majority state would be totally impossible anyway, so that alone makes it meaningless.

DU distorts the CWI position - I'll try and find some decent links that make our actual position clearer. If course we would defend the right of folk to go where they like. But the right of return as it is posed is as likely as one or two socialist states - the problems of 'return' as only actually going to be resolved as part of the wider movement as workers. At the moment a demand seperate from specifically socialist ones pushing the unity of the working class is used by those with a very different agenda to that of socialists and workers.

There is also the issue that in such a small land space, with so few resources whether it would even be remotely viable to have two states.

I've answered that - at least partially - above ultimately I would imagine that any states coming into existence as a result of mass workers movements would be build on close cooperation and federation - if multiple entities were deemed necessary at all - as a result of the experience those at the head of that movement had gone through in the process of creating a space where such options are even a practical possibility.

That is the point with any transitional demands - they are, ultimately, not some perfect 'this is the only possible way' list - simply propaganda points that would be fleshed out when taken up and turned into concrete possibilites - just like "can't pay won't pay" or "bread, peace and land" - just slogans waiting to be filled with 'meaning' by those they are intended to appeal to.

 

[dennisr]

Here's a couple of articles:

"Who can live like this? Who can die like this?" - Sharon launches new war on Palestinians (5 April 2002): http://socialistworld.net/eng/2002/04/05.html

"The CWI supports the right to return for Palestinian refugees. But this will never be achieved on a capitalist basis"

Sharon’s brutal war (20 April 2002): http://socialistworld.net/eng/2002/04/20b.html

"One of the knottiest problems is undoubtedly the right of return of the Palestinians. Two or three generations of refugees have now endured the camps, longing for a return to their towns and villages occupied or destroyed by Israel after 1948 and 1967, or more recently. However, not only the Israeli ruling class but a majority of Israeli Jews fear that implementation of such a right would tip the demographic balance decisively against them. Effectively, it would spell the end of a Jewish state and they will not accept it. Some Arab leaders, including some PLO leaders, have flirted with the idea of trading the right of return for compensation for refugees returning to a Palestinian state (not surprisingly, contrasting Israel’s refusal to compensate the Palestinian diaspora with the massive reparations paid by West Germany to Israel and Jewish victims of fascism). Arab leaders dare not openly spell out such a proposition, however, as it would provoke fury amongst Palestinians, who would see it as a betrayal of their deepest national aspirations. But how can this legitimate demand be satisfied under capitalism? Only socialist states collaborating in a socialist federation, would have the political authority and material resources to resolve the problem. There is no way out of the Middle East conflict under capitalism. Hasn’t that been amply demonstrated by the region’s tortured history? The struggle of the Palestinians has to be linked to a socialist programme."

(this article also spells out in much more detail the CWi position re both the non-class based demand for a Palestinian state and the reasons for the CWI's own approach - this bit is just a taster - you should read the rest of the article to get a fair idea of the arguement: "Some on the left argue for a ‘democratic secular Palestinian state’, sometimes adding ‘socialist’ to the formula, with democratic rights for Jews in such a state. Effectively, this would mean the abolition of a Jewish state in favour of a Palestinian state. This approach, in our view, cannot provide a way forward.")

 

[cockneyrebel]

Not by telling them they should be driven into the sea - thats for certain. The point about piviledge could be applied to the all manner of sections of the world working class - does not change the simple fact that thy exist in the place they do and cannot be wished away.

Funny you mention aparheid - its a good example - The old SACTU and COSATU union federations in SA made a point of never closing unions off to the white minority there - despite the miniscule percentage of the population they represented (therefore a slightly different case which one cannot directly compare, but, nethertheless...). There were eminently sensible reasons for that - partly propaganda (and counter-propaganda to the lies of the apartheid state), partly self education (emphesising class as opposed to nationalist demands), partly as a way of assisting any possible splits within white rule of the apartheid state. They were right to do so. (one of my then friends became the first white member - as an honorary member during the miners strike)

But I've never said drive the Jews into the sea or that there shouldn't be efforts made to radicalise and make links with the Jewish working class. That should be taken as granted and don't really see the point of saying such things.

But material interests are crucial. Yes you might have had white working class South Africans fighting apartheid, but it was very few. And the reason it was very few was because of the material interests involved. And yes there are conflicting materical interests for different sections of the working class (with the theory of the labour aristocricy etc). But the Israeli working class and Israel as a nation are in a fairly unique position. They are an apartheid state and their existance depends almost entirely on having the USA as a benefactor (in arms and money). Without that, Israel, as a Jewish state, could not exist. So the material privaliges of the Israeli working class are intrinsically linked to this. As such while the Israeli economy is doing ok resistance to zionism from Israeli Jews will always be fringe and muted and a brief look at the last few decades clearly shows this.

No matter how much socialists appeal to them it won't change a thing, because it won't change the material basis of their privaliges.

Now if there was an economic crisis and the Israeli ruling class had to carry out severe attacks on the Jewish working class this would change things, but this brings us to the second point.

Realisation of the limits of any state would only come out of the act of a united struggle itself. I don't imagine it would be an issue if things had reached the level required to make them possible (but would not prescribe such) but, as a propaganda point countering state initiated fear the demand plays a role in being able to approach those workers. The same reason we would support the call for an independent scotland - if it was a mass demand - while pointing out the limitations and linking that demand to a scottish workers programme (arguing that the main 'task' is unity in struggle with non-scottish workers of course..). The same reason the bolcheviks accepted the experiment of the jewish workers state in russia (fucked though it was by later events..) - the right of nations to self -determination. It was the only way in which those people could begin to see that a workers government recognised how they had experienced oppression and would support and defend their rights. it is a transitional demand - not a presentation of the 'one true way forward' in the view of the CWI

I don't think it gets over any of the fears of the Israeli jewish working class as it is totally irrelevant to the privalidges they get under capitalism. To undermine fears you have to take it on a class basis, not on a nationalist basis, as in this case those nationalist interests absolutely depend on apartheid, Palestinian oppression and the refusal of the right of return. The only way this can be changed is through struggle and that will only happen if the Israeli economy starts to be undermined or if events outside of Israel cause similar problems.

The trouble with the self-determination of Israel as a Jewish state is that there is no way this can be acheived without the oppression of the Palestinians.

DU distorts the CWI position - I'll try and find some decent links that make our actual position clearer. If course we would defend the right of folk to go where they like. But the right of return as it is posed is as likely as one or two socialist states - the problems of 'return' as only actually going to be resolved as part of the wider movement as workers. At the moment a demand seperate from specifically socialist ones pushing the unity of the working class is used by those with a very different agenda to that of socialists and workers.

The cut and paste from the article just says that nothing can be done about the right of return under capitalism. Well I wouldn't disagree. But that's the point, under socialism there would be right of return and that right of return would make a Jewish state impossible both through demographics and geography, it just wouldn't be possible.

I've answered that - at least partially - above ultimately I would imagine that any states coming into existence as a result of mass workers movements would be build on close cooperation and federation - if multiple entities were deemed necessary at all - as a result of the experience those at the head of that movement had gone through in the process of creating a space where such options are even a practical possibility.

But because of the above I don't see there is any use in the two states slogan, I think it's a utopian slogan at best. It will either be ignored under current conditions or be irrelevant in times of working class militancy. Why would the jewish working class fear their working class counterparts in Palestine in mass socialist movement? And why would they take any notice of the slogan while they are bound by the current material interests?

 

[dennisr]

But I've never said drive the Jews into the sea or that there shouldn't be efforts made to radicalise and make links with the Jewish working class. That should be taken as granted and don't really see the point of saying such things.

It is taken for granted in your case you daft and overly sensitive sod which is why I have never accused you of such a position

But material interests are crucial ...
No matter how much socialists appeal to them it won't change a thing, because it won't change the material basis of their privaliges.

You don't believe that the israeli and the 'apatheid white' working class are comparable do you?

how to you feel that the material conditions of the israeli working class mean its interests are, as a whole, so different from the rest of the world working class to to be permanently tied to the israeli state? what is this qualitative difference?

to add: the CWI members in israel have to work on the ground - what for you is a utopian demand is for them a necessary qualification of where they stand

 

[cockneyrebel]

It is taken for granted in your case you daft and overly sensitive sod which is why I have never accused you of such a position

I think I must be hormonal today or something. What with this and mk12 on the other thread. I dunno. Think I need a good cuppa tea.



And you're welcome to pop round for a cuppa any time as well!

You don't believe that the israeli and the 'apatheid white' working class are comparable do you?

how to you feel that the material conditions of the israeli working class mean its interests are, as a whole, so different from the rest of the world working class to to be permanently tied to the israeli state? what is this qualitative difference?

to add: the CWI members in israel have to work on the ground - what for you is a utopian demand is for them a necessary qualification of where they stand

Apologies if the word utopian seemed dismissive. I meant it in the strictly political sense of not being able, in my view, to be able to relate to the material conditions.

Now I'm willing to be shown to be totally wrong on this but the reason I would compare the Jewish working class in Israel with the white working class in South Africa is because I think that their material privelidges and indeed the whole state of Israel as a Jewish/zionist state is totally dependent on US military technology/hardware and US monetary aid (although I'd say the military bit is even more crucial). The Israeli state as it is also depends on an apartheid state and keeping the Palestinians oppressed.

I can't think of another state that quite fits that category to be honest, that literally couldn't survive without foreign aid.

 

[dennisr]

you're welcome to pop round for a cuppa any time as well!

I may well take you up on that mate

Apologies if the word utopian seemed dismissive.

No reason to apologise - I was just trying to bring home the reason why I am bothering to defend what to most folk (outside of leftie weirdos like us) would seem a minor point - ie that is has concrete resonance among the layer of lefts the CWI has attracted in Israel and effects how they are able to operate (they have face serious attacks and slander in response to the results of their action and support for workers in struggle in israel)

Now I'm willing to be shown to be totally wrong on this but the reason I would compare the Jewish working class in Israel with the white working class in South Africa is because I think that their material privelidges and indeed the whole state of Israel as a Jewish/zionist state is totally dependent on US military technology/hardware and US monetary aid (although I'd say the military bit is even more crucial). The Israeli state as it is also depends on an apartheid state and keeping the Palestinians oppressed.

I can't think of another state that quite fits that category to be honest, that literally couldn't survive without foreign aid.

I don't for one moment question the role the israeli state plays on behalf of US imperialism. Certainly the state depends on military and economic support ot exist. But does that mean israeli workers as well? (including the arab ones??).

I don't think the israeli working class can be compared to the SA white apartheid working class. I think that is crude. They carry a much bigger social weight for very practical reasons - they make up a large percentage of the existing population in israel.

Some examples of recent disputes (from the Israeli site at http://maavak.org.il ):

Sharp increase in Israeli workers’ struggles (April 2007): http://maavak.org.il/maavak/?article=425

Contract postal workers storm Histadruth union HQ: http://maavak.org.il/maavak/?article=409

Contract postal workers demand permanent job status: http://maavak.org.il/maavak/?article=399

New budget declares war against Israeli workers (Nov 2006): http://maavak.org.il/maavak/?article=398

Thousands of student clash with police to protest at government attempts to raise tuition fees (may 2007) (I could not bring myself to use the original g=heading on that article...): http://maavak.org.il/maavak/?article=446

Support the 450 workers of Tadiran Kesher Factory: http://maavak.org.il/maavak/?article=335

Solidarity with Metrodan Bus Drivers: http://maavak.org.il/maavak/?article=276

All these examples point ot one simple thing - class contradictions exist between the israeli state, its boss class and workers. Nowt special about that regardless of the role of US imperialism or the relative 'security' these workers may or may not have. Noe of these articles shy in also pointing out the specific conditions that palestinian and arab working class in the region face

 

[cockneyrebel]

No reason to apologise - I was just trying to bring home the reason why I am bothering to defend what to most folk (outside of leftie weirdos like us) would seem a minor point - ie that is has concrete resonance among the layer of lefts the CWI has attracted in Israel and effects how they are able to operate (they have face serious attacks and slander in response to the results of their action and support for workers in struggle in israel)

I have no doubt that the CWI gets a resonance among some layers, but I'd be extremely surprised if it was anything beyond extremely small layers. The vast majority of the Jewish working class are zionists and I can't see that changing (because of the material conditions), unless weaknesses start to appear in the economy.

But does that mean israeli workers as well? (including the arab ones??).

From the stats I've seen arab workers don't have the same standard of living as Jewish workers but I'm not 100% on that.

But the jewish working class do have a privalidged position with living standards far above other workers in the region. This is based upon the apartheid state and the US propping them up. I think that's what keeps the Jewish working class in check in terms of zionism and can't see that changing while the economy is ok.

All these examples point ot one simple thing - class contradictions exist between the israeli state, its boss class and workers.

I totally agree that there are class tensions and you can't make exact comparisons with South Africa. However while white workers in South Africa depended on apartheid to keep their privaliges the Jewish Israeli working class depends on being propped up by the US and through the apartheid zionist state. To put it simply a specifically jewish state could not exist without the US propping it up.

But that doesn't mean class tensions don't exist, just not enough to break the jewish working class from zionism (as is shown by the massive support for zionist wars and zionist occupation). But if those class tensions got greater (probably through the economy faltering), this may well change, but if that happened then it would be (in my view), on a cross Palestinian/Jewish working class base.

Anyway I respect where you're coming from even if I disagree, I know it's not like the AWLs position of soft zionism.

 

[lightsinthebay]

Israel has nuclear weapons. No state will go to war with it.
It defeated Arab armies in 1948 and 1956 before it was hooked up to a cut price military hardware conveyer belt starting in Washington. It really only became the U.S.'s best buddy after the Six Days War.
That was back when it actually faced real threats from conventional armies and actually was surrounded on all sides.
Now there are just stone throwers in the occupied territories, a few paramilitary groups there too that seem mostly inactive as regard "fighting" Israel, plus Hezbollah. It has an accord with Egypt and Jordan, so even with out the nuclear option the only potential conventional invasion is from the North. Lebanon is dubious as such a route, as it would need more Syrian domination, and that would actually push some Lebanese into the arms of Israel as in 1982. There is a small border with Syria where Israel holds the defensible high ground. Israel has its own defence industry. It also already has all the gear they got off the Americans. Sure American logisitical support reduces the costs of war efforts, like last year with Lebanon. But even if it was essential to these sorts of operations, they are far from being essential to Israeli secutrity (in fact was that the issue?), let alone survivial.
The perception of a threat is very politically important, but there isn't any actual threat. Israel is not dependant on American military support.

 

[cockneyrebel]

But even if it was essential to these sorts of operations, they are far from being essential to Israeli secutrity (in fact was that the issue?), let alone survivial.

The perception of a threat is very politically important, but there isn't any actual threat. Israel is not dependant on American military support.

If Israel pulled out the nuclear option then we'd probably be seeing WWIII anyway.

If the US withdrew its military support Israel may be able to hold on for a decade or so but no longer.

In the new millennium, the IAF bought the F-15I Ra'am (Thunder) and the F-16I Sufa (Storm), two of the most advanced variants of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, manufactured specially for Israel according to the IAF requirements. The IAF has purchased 102 Sufa F-16I warplanes, the first planes arrived in April, 2004 (the IAF is the largest operator of F-16's after the US Air Force). The IAF also purchased the advanced Israeli air-to-air missile Rafael Python 5, with full-sphere capability, and considered among the best in its field, as well as a special version of the Apache Longbow, designated AH-64DI or Saraph. In 2005 the Israeli Air Force received special Gulfstream V jets (known as "Nachshon"), modified with the newest and most advanced intelligence systems in the world, all made by Israel Military Industries.

The IDF in all wars has relied heavily on its airforce, which is now almost totally supplied by the USA. If the USA withdrew its support this would put a huge strain on the Israeli economy. In turn this would put strain on a military that would already be deprived of US hardware and technology which comprises the backbone of its armed force.

Have a look here and scroll down to "Current aircraft inventory" to see how reliant the IAF is on the USA.

If the USA withdrew financial and military support Israel would go into total crisis.

This, in turn, would embolden Arab nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and also Iran as well. What would they have to lose once the USA pulled out of supporting Israel?

 

[lightsinthebay]

They would have quite a lot to lose given the fact a single Israeli missile could wipe out a city, and Israel could beat them in 1948, 1956, and 1967 - before massive U.S. support for Israel.
Supposing Israel was reliant on American aircraft, said aircraft are not gonna disappear if the U.S. withdrew support, they might date, but is there a conventional army anywhere in the region, or combination of, that, even without Israel's nuclear option, can match Israel? Dependant would also mean they couldn't purchase weaponry, perhaps not as good or as cheap, from elsewhere, or manufacture their own.
Also Jordan at least has never seemed very anti-Israel.
They used airpower a lot in the recent Lebanon conflict because well it is the cheapest option, more ground troops equals more casulties, did they need from a security point of view, much less a survivial point of view, to blow the hell out of the Lebanon cause two soliders were "kidnapped". I don't think so, they could have negiotiated and made a prisoner swap, as I think they did before with one of the Palestinian groups. They also have their own military and air industries.
I suspect, excepting the situation in the occupied territories, the 'conflict' as it exists now has more to do with internal politics than it does have to do with relations between states. Maybe it suits some of the Arab regimes (and Iran) to say to their populations 'oh look at the nasty Jews' and maybe it suits the Israeli ruling class to maintain a continual perception of threat. The actual conflict as it has panned out over the last 35 odd years has been one of really minor guerrilla attacks on Israel versus complete devastation in any of the areas from whence those attacks come. There is a massive advantage in Israel's favour even without the U.S. Anyways even when Israel was outnumbered and outgunned and surrounded 60 years ago it still won, it was able to met the actual existing threats of that period.

 

[cockneyrebel]

They would have quite a lot to lose given the fact a single Israeli missile could wipe out a city, and Israel could beat them in 1948, 1956, and 1967 - before massive U.S. support for Israel.

As said though I think if Israel saw the nuclear option then we'd probably be hitting world war III anyway so it wouldn't really matter. And it's not like all Israel's past wars were a walkover, you could easily see a scenario where the US withdrew financial and military aid where Israel lost land such as the Golan Heights and went further and further into hardship.

Supposing Israel was reliant on American aircraft, said aircraft are not gonna disappear if the U.S. withdrew support, they might date, but is there a conventional army anywhere in the region, or combination of, that, even without Israel's nuclear option, can match Israel?

As said not right now, but its conceivable that after a decade or so that could well be the case as Israeli technology drops further and further behind. And it's not supposing, Israel is totally reliant on US aircraft. Maybe they could purchase aircraft elsewhere but the point is that they wouldn't be nearly as good.

They also have their own military and air industries.

Which in the case of military aircraft really isn't up to much.

You've also got to remember that for such a small country to try and keep up technologically and keep ahead of the game they would face a bigger and bigger burden on their economy. With US aid withdrawn this would probably push the Israeli economy into meltdown at some point, it's not like they have a wealth of natural resources.

I would agree that the Arab ruling class doesn't give a shit, but they might not be there forever either.

 

[lightsinthebay]

It wouldn't be World War 3. World War 3 would be a global conflict between superpowers, like the possible war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in times past. With Israel it would be only limited and local, as with previous nuclear weapons usage in Japan. Anyways the advantage of nuclear weapons is you do not need to use them, just have them, once you have them you are sitting pretty - you will not face conventional military invasion from another state, or states. Certainly not from another state which doesn't have nuclear weapons. If Israel was defeated on a conventional battlefield to the extent that a danger was posed to the states continued existance then missiles would fly in the direction of Damascus, Tehran and wherever else. Therefore unlikely anyone will ever launch a serious invasion of Israel.
They also don't have to keep up in the game, the opposition isn't even in the same league, just in conventional terms, nevermind nuclear.
No the previous wars were not walkovers, years ago Israel was faced with states which were hostile to it, and which held the material advantage, what happened then doesn't suggest a dependance on American material support, given that Israel completely hammered its opponents then, before Washington turned on the tap.
American military support has mostly been a factor after the ending of the threat, ie in the 80s and 90s up till today, when Israel has been repressing the occupied territories and invading Lebanon, in apparent response to rioting and/or minor guerrilla attacks. Excepting the 1973 war that is.
If Israel was in a serious military competition with hostile surrounding states, supposing there were new nationalist or Islamist regimes in Jordan and Egypt, and removing the nuclear option, then maybe they would have problems without the Americans. Also supposing that the new regimes would have either friendly states or the necessary productive capacity to build up their militaries. This isn't the existing situation, so I don't think Israel is dependant.
As for "security" in its actual meaning, ie the security of the common or garden populace of Israel, less American logistical support to the state would probably facilitate that, as it would make Israeli government militarism more costly, and hence discourage them from it, and thereby not be provoking desoultry rocket attacks or suicide bombings from groups among the populace of the occupied territories, who the IDF persecute with impunity.

 

[fanciful]

What rubbish. The USA has been supporting Israel since its inception in 1948

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

In its recent assault on the Lebanon, not only did the USA supply it will all its ordance, it resupplied them as they began to run out of bombs and paid for the resupply itself. In fact the only part of the operation the US didn't provide were the actual bodies flying the planes and manning the tanks i.e. the soldiers of the IDF.
Certainly none of Israels neighbours are military rivals to it at present. Doesn't that rather confirm the point?

 

[cockneyrebel]

lightsinthebay I really don't think a nuclear strike could ever be just a local issue. Also as Iran and maybe Arab nations might well develop nuclear weapons in the next decade or so this would also significantly change power relations in the area.

I think fanciful has backed up the point about how reliant Israel is on the US. As said, it wouldn't fall apart straight away but a withdrawal of support from the US would be devasting for both their military and economy in the long run.

 

[lightsinthebay]

Fanciful the graph you link to bears out what I'm saying - look at the column for military aid - none in the 1940s and for most of the 1950s, very little in the 1960s, until 1966, and it doesn't really shoot up until the 1970s, very high subsequently through the decades when there has been no real threat to Israel (ie from the mid-70s onwards).
Therefore Israel was able to defeat actual threats without American military aid, and the American military aid which subsequently became a factor, was, for the most part, one unlinked to any actual threat to Israel.
Therefore Israel's continued existance or security in any real sense (ie of joe public) is not dependant on or reliant on American military aid.
This is the issue, not the existance or non-existance of such aid, which is a non-issue.
The fact that Washington supported last year's assault on Lebanon only proves a 'reliance' or 'dependance' if we hold that the attack would have been (a) impossible without that support and (b) that it was necessary for an Israeli survivial/security point of view. We can debate (a), but (b) is a very dubious position, to me it doesn't look like the Israeli state was attacking southern Lebanon for reasons related to the surivial of Israel or the security of its citizenry. Neither Hezbollah nor the groups in the occupied territories constitue a threat to the survival of Israel. In so far as they constitue an occasional security threat, with occasional rocket attacks or suicide bombings or whatever, this threat would be diminished considerably if the IDF wasn't engaged in perpetual violence against the populations neighbouring Israel.
That is what the Americans are supporting, not a 'defence of Israel'.
They like to pretend it is 1948, 1956, 1967, or 1973 all over again, but it isn't.
It is a brutal occupation of a largely defenceless population in the occupied territories, coupled with the occasional attack on the Lebanon.
We can discuss what motivates the American military support, or what it achieves, most likely I think it is so the Israeli lobby doesn't hop up and down about American military sales and aid to Arab states, but in the abscence of an actual threat to Israel I don't think we can say it is necessary for the defence of Israel. Israel hasn't been defending itself since the 1970s.
Cockneyrebel why would Israeli use of nuclear weapons involve the rest of the world in a conflict?
Also in the event of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, this decreases the chance of a major war (ie the sort of thing that would be a threat to Israel's existance), for the same reason that the Israeli nuclear weapons do, that is it makes Israel much less likely to attack Iran. I don't think any Arab states have a nuclear weapons programme? All of course contingent on Iran not being attacked first, which is what the Israeli state usually does.

 

[junius]

Extact from a bulletin sent to local anti-war groups, with the thoughts by Kim Jong Murray. Clearly, he is rattled.

Apologies for the length of his diatribe.

2) CLARIFICATION: HANDS OFF THE PEOPLE OF IRAN
> Groups may have been contacted by an organisation called Hands off the
> People
> of Iran, concerning the decision of the officers of StWC to decline the
> applications for affiliation from Communist Students and Hands off the
> People
> of Iran.
>
> Please find below a clarification on this matter by Andrew Murray, Chair
> of
> StWC.
>
> Dear Brothers/ Sisters,
>
> I think that three things should be made clear concerning Hands off the
> People
> of Iran:
>
> First, the Stop the War Coalition is a voluntary body set up by
> individuals and
> organisations to pursue particular political aims. As such no individual
> or
> group has a “right” to membership of it. Like any voluntary organisation
> (as opposed to a public body) we have the right to determine who may join
> us.
> We have an elected leadership answerable under a democratic constitution
> empowered to take these decisions in what we believe to be the best
> interests
> of the movement we serve. Such decisions may, of course, be proved
> mistaken by
> the course of subsequent events. But it is in no sense “censorship” to
> take
> those decisions, since nobody is thereby denied their right to publish or
> circulate material. Since our formation there have always been anti-war
> people
> or organisations which have chosen to stay outside StWC, just as there
> have
> been organisations to which we have denied affiliation in the past.
>
> Second, the issue is not StWC’s view of the Iranian regime. This is merely
> a
> stick used to beat us by those wanting to divide the movement. The Iranian
> regime is dictatorial and often brutal and is based on the denial of many
> basic
> rights. We are no more “friends” of the Iranian regime than we were
> friends of the Taliban in Afghanistan or Saddam in Iraq, to recall a
> couple of
> the slanderous attacks made on us by warmongers down the years.
>
> The main focus of StWC is, however, on challenging the policies of the
> British
> government in respect of the war, which includes respecting the rights of
> all
> peoples to self-determination. There are a number of organisations working
> in
> solidarity with the Iranian people, and a number of StWC affiliates
> participate
> in such activity as well. We have never believed it is correct to cloud
> the
> movement’s objectives by placing issues of ‘regime change’ (which are
> ultimately the business of the peoples of the country concerned) on an
> equal
> footing with stopping the war, or at least British involvement in it. The
> latter is the reason for our existence. We have no fear of debate on this
> issue - the sort of views advanced by Hands off the People of Iran have
> been
> debated at almost every one of our conferences, and have never received
> more
> than miniscule support.
>
> Third, our decision in respect of these two organisations is, however,
> political. Both are effectively controlled by the Weekly Worker group
> (CPGB),
> indeed their spokesman in the current controversy is the Weekly Worker’s
> national organiser. This body has been hostile to StWC from its
> inception. It
> declined to support the objectives of the Coalition, which they now pray
> freely
> in aid, when they were first adopted in October 2001. Its coverage of StWC
> activities is not merely critical, but usually abusive, and reflects the
> attacks made by our pro-war opponents. It supported the witch-hunting of
> George Galloway in 2003 and urged voters not to support Jeremy Corbyn in
> the
> general election of 2005.
>
> When I was myself subject to extensive attack in the pro-war media in
> 2003, the
> main lines of such attack were echoed faithfully, with, if anything, added
> vitriol, in the pages of the Weekly Worker. It seldom supports our
> activities
> -- for example, the successful march held on October 8 in defiance of a
> police
> ban was neither promoted by the Weekly Worker in advance, nor attended on
> the
> day by its supporters nor reported afterwards, for reasons one can only
> guess
> at.
>
> Indeed, Workers Weekly established Hands off the People of Iran at the
> start of
> 2007 explicitly as an alternative to StWC and because it no longer wished
> to
> support the Coalition -- moves they had every right to take and which
> follow
> logically from their hostility to us. But to seek to affiliate many
> months
> later when they could have done at the time of their formation if their
> solidarity with us was sincere, and on the eve of a conference is, as I
> originally wrote, neither sympathetic nor supportive.
>
> Even a cursory perusal of the material produced by Weekly Worker is
> testimony
> to its antipathy to StWC. This is consistent with the disruptive role it
> has
> played in a series of organisations in our movement over the last 25
> years,
> which is why it has been praised by pro-war journalists like David
> Aaronovich
> and pro-war websites like Harry’s Place. Naturally, Weekly Worker has
> every
> right to pursue its own political agenda as it sees fit, but StWC has no
> obligation to provide it with a platform. If activists in the anti-war
> movement wish to debate the views of such groups -- and I have seen very
> little
> evidence that any do -- then there are no doubt opportunities available in
> their own publications and meetings.
>
> From its inception, StWC has been a broad and tolerant organisation. Had
> it
> been otherwise we could not have sustained the movement at the level we
> have.
> Occasionally, however, we have to take prophylactic measures to protect
> our
> integrity, and this is one of those cases.
>
> The decisions taken by the Officers Group in this respect will be reported
> to
> the next meeting of the national Steering Committee for ratification. If
> either
> Communist Students of Hands off the People of Iran wish to make written
> representations to that meeting, they will of course be afforded the right
> to
> do so.
>
> Yours,
>
> Andrew Murray
>
> STOP THE WAR COALITION www.stopwar.org.uk 0207278 6694
> [email protected]
>
> ************************************
> --

 

[junius]

A reply to Murray.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/693/Hopi Amir.htm

 

[fanciful]

So the US massively ups military aid the year before the 6 day war,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

and this has nothing to do with the ability of Israel to defend itself? More rubbish. But really anyway, so much crap when you consider what Israel actually does to the Palestinians. If, as you claim that Israel is really entirely responsible for its own work in the West Bank, then all the more shame on it.

This was a very telling article I thought about the relationship of the Israeli troops to the Palestinians;

"One soldier recalled: 'After two months in Rafah, a [new] commanding officer arrived... So we do a first patrol with him. It's 6am, Rafah is under curfew, there isn't so much as a dog in the streets. Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers.

'He grabbed the boy. I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock...

'The next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2195924,00.html

 

[chilango]

> Third, our decision in respect of these two organisations is, however,
> political. Both are effectively controlled by the Weekly Worker group
> (CPGB),

¨...SNIP::::

> Indeed, Workers Weekly established Hands off the People of Iran at the
> start of
> 2007 explicitly as an alternative to StWC -

Is this a typo or is he referring to the two seperate papers?

 

[lightsinthebay]

More rubbish. But really anyway, so much crap when you consider what Israel actually does to the Palestinians. If, as you claim that Israel is really entirely responsible for its own work in the West Bank, then all the more shame on it.

Fanciful you are obviously having difficulty in understanding my posts, there are two central contentions in them:

(1) Years ago Israel was defending itself, at this time there was no, or considerably less, American military aid than there is now.
(e.g none for 1948 and 1956, some for 1967 - but then the material advantage was still held by the Arab armies).

(2) Most of the American military aid to Israel has came at a time when there was no real threat to Israel.

How you translate this into "If, as you claim that Israel is really entirely responsible for its own work in the West Bank" I do not know.