Many tears have been shed over Itzhak Rabin (peace to his torturous
soul) and prayers directed to the heavens for the good understanding
between Arafat and Netaniahu. Thousands of white doves have already left
their little shit on the White House lawn. And yet, the politics Rabin
conceived with Shimon Peres, and that Netaniahu seems now, if
reluctantly, resigned to proceed, has nothing to do peace or with the
political authonomy to the palestinian people. The idea is, and has
always been, with the most blunt of cynicisms: separation or "separated
development", which is the exact translation of the afrikans apartheid.
This politics is issued from the contradictions that have always
pervaded the fanciful racic zionist project and that stand at the base
of its present state of unbalanced political and demographic dynamics.
But first, lets make a bit of history.
Having behind it, no doubt, a multi-secular history of anti-semite
persecussions (which curiously never occurred in the arab nations, home
to many scattered jewish communities) it was in the XIX century that the
jewish question, as a glowing political problem, was born in Europe. The
jews in Europe have always performed a preponderant role in
commerce. They were kind of hibrid of class/ethnic group, a phenomenon
not at all uncommon historically, similar, for instance, to what happens
today with some indian communities rooted in several countries of
eastern Africa. This relationship was kept more or less steadily (except
in the Iberian peninsula where the jews were expelled in the XVI
century), with many frictions and some violent episodes, until it
reached a point of rupture with the ascent of the european nationalist
movement of the last century. The bourgeois political project has
managed to, somehow, assimilate the jews in western Europe (after
breaking their commercial monopoly) but entered in frontal collision
with them in the central and eastern parts of the continent. In response
to that, was the zionist movement born and officialy created in the
Basel congress of 1897, presided by Theodor Herzl.
The idea of creating a home country for the jewish communities faced and
tested several hypothesis besides Palestine, though this was naturally
the first option. The zionist movement has even had talks with Salazar
in view of a possible extensive colonization of the interior of Angola.
To this day, Israel maintains vested interests in Africa.
This episode is not merelly anecdotal. It illustrates the historical
coincidence between the european political crisis caused by
anti-semitism and the colonial hunting-party opened on the last quarter
of the XIX century and known as imperialism's classical age.
The temptation arised then, for solving this purely european problem by
exporting it, as if part and parcel (which in a way it was) of the vast
expansionist movement of the old continent, expressed in colonial
ventures and strong migratory movements. Thus appeared the Balfour
declaration of 1917 and, with it, the start of the jewish colonization
of Palestine under the british mandate. After WW II, and the revelation
of the whole extension of the nazi barbarism, the movement couldn't be
stopped, burdening the shoulders of the arab palestinian people with all
the weight of the expiation for the unspeakable crimes of the white man.
And so the state of Israel was proclaimed in 1948, now under the
patronage of the United States, achieved and consolidated by the most
brutal and relentless ethnic cleansing.
Meanwhile, the movement of biblical "return" to Palestine was relatively
modest, in comparaison with other much more atractive destinies common
to the generality of the european emigration of the turn of the century:
America and Oceania, particularly the United States. It was here,
particularly on the east coast, that an important jewish colony was
formed. Today, it has tremendous influence in Washington and is a
fundamental articulation of all the yankee imperialist policy for the
Middle East. Israel is the darling of the rich american jewish
bourgeoisie, a kind of summer motherland in an exotic place, filled with
all sorts of historical and "spiritual" evocations. Purely ideological
considerations have their importance, even in geo-strategical questions.
On the other hand, the north-american bourgeoisie (jewish and
non-jewish alike) uses Israel as a fundametal lever for its policy in
all this strategic area.
I'm hardly an expert in jewish history but it's quite clear to me that
there is no jewish people as such, measured by any scientifically valid
criterion, be it biological or cultural. What we have is a jewish
religious tradition, spread among several communities resident in
Europe, America, Africa and the Middle East. The zionist ideology though
is based on a fantasy of race and off-spring, well reflected on Israel's
law of "return". As a nationalist project, zionism is atypical in many
ways. It didn't grow in place but was grafted there. It could easily be
subsumed in the more global colonial phenomenon. But it has nonetheless
some special characteristics which granted its survival so far: a strong
nationalist project and the support of the U.S.A. (the "anti-colonial"
power) as opposed to european sponsorship.
The nucleus of the israelite project is, naturally, the colony that came
from eastern Europe (the ashkenazim). They, along with a few people
coming from America and western Europe, occupy the upper echelons in
israeli society, giving it its distinctly "western" character. The
majority of the population, however, is formed of communities that came
from arab countries, mostly maghrebians (the sephardim). Black
ethiopians (falashas) and ex-soviets immigrants are other important and
distinct groups. To all these "jews" we must add a residual but not
neglectable component of arab inhabitants of israeli citizenship. Since
a new wave of emigration to Israel is not predictable, these will be the
components with which the zionist leaders will have to compose a nation
in territory conquered by force of arms, in a totally strange continent,
subject to the mounting demographic pressure of the surrounding arab
populations that grow at a much superior rate.
Only the permanent tension with an external and internal (on the
occupied territories) enemy allows yet to maintain a semblance of unity
and common purpose in the israeli society. It's also that state of
affairs that explains a remarkable particularity of israeli electoral
sociology: the poor - including 2/3 of the sephardim - vote generally on
the right wing parties (eager to reinforce their caste superiority
towards the palestinians and arab israelis with whom they compete
directly on the work market), while the upper and medium strata
generally trust on Labour, that is after all the historical party of
zionism. Social polarization and a rigid stratification along
ethno-cultural lines have continuously rised in the jewish society. The
existence of a sizeable, fanatical and well organized ultra-religious
community puts serious obstacles to the very constitutional definition
of the israeli state. Finally, 18% of the israeli population lives
bellow the absolute poverty line.
It's all these nightmares that explain the beligerant and arrogant
politics of "Bibi" when, from the point of view of "pure" international
politics, nothing apparently justifies it. The question is open then:
will he go to the point of abandoning altogether the Peres-Rabin project
of a palestinian bantustization, with total political separation? This
is clearly the project of the israeli bourgeoisie and the imperialist
pressure in that sense is also steady, if benevolent. But the electoral
base of Likud (colons, sephardims, etc.) and the religious integralists
are pressing for something more akin to total annexation of the occupied
territories.
The poles of zionism's present dilemma have therefore a base and a well
defined social content. The objective of ashkenazim bourgeoisie (in the
impossibility of simply expelling altogether the near to 3 million
palestinians and arab israelis still living on the territory of the old
palestinian mandate) is to maintain and strenghten the "western"
identity of the country, by jettisoning the burden of a costly military
occupation and avoiding the dangers of the palestinian demographic
pressure on its cherished jewish "national" identity. The sephardims and
other poor jews, however, segregated in their own adopted country by not
so subtle forms of daily discrimination, don't feel the israeli national
question in quite the same way. This was the "secret" of Likud's
electoral victory. Being, for the moment, the stratum more prey to
chauvinist rethoric and a faithful support for the "falcons", they could
bring, in other circonstances, an important contribute to building a
politics of transnational class unity that can, ultimately, transform
the political definition of the israeli state.
After the signing of the deal on Al Jalil (Hebron) things looked to be
set, with the high patronage of the U.S.A., for a solution of the
palestinian question somewhat intermediary between the two tendencies in
dispute. The political balance is very unstable now, following the
Bar-On scandal. It could either go the way of a national unity
government or of a right wing radicalization. In this last case,
however, war is innevitable and that wouldn't please the U.S.A. a little
bit. So we are likely to continue to see Netanyahu - with Clinton's
complacence - pressing the palestinians for more concessions, well on
the limit of an innevitable rupture but without crossing it.
This will give us a scenario of Oslo with the adding of a few
supplementary refinements of humiliation for Arafat and his "authority".
Palestinian political authonomy will be restricted and Israel will do
extensive annexations of territory in Cisjordan, including all of
Jerusalem and the most important natural ressources. The jewish state
will have control over the palestinian's borders and air traffic. For
"security" reasons naturally. It will control and aprove all of its
foreign trade. There will be no palestinian army. There will be
tutellary military and security accords, with important israeli military
bases being left behind permanently. The jewish settlements will stay,
or even be enlarged. A modern network of roads will shread all of
Cisjordan, linking the main settlements to the israeli cities, leaving
the arab towns and villages entirely marginalized in its depressed
intestices. Most importantly, no sizeable return will be allowed of the
palestinian refugees (waves of 1948 and 1967). Rabin's legacy or, as
Peres said in his last electoral campaign, the "national imperative"
will be, thus, respected on its fundamental lines.
Arafat has no way out, after having come this far. His dreams are now to
buid "a kind of Benelux with Israel and Jordan". This candour is almost
obscene. It's unbelievable that he doesn't see that he is to become the
foreman and super-cop on a giant township of ultra-explored and
nationally humiliated workers, a filthy and infected dormitory with no
authonomous economic life of its own. IMO, this simulacrum of a
palestinian state is not the solution that best suits the interests of
the proletariat and poor masses of Cisjordan and the Gaza strip. The
arab palestinian people should get rid of its notoriously corrupt elites
and unite with the jewish working class, forming a vast popular alliance
of all oppressed "national" fragments living in present day Palestine.
Only this alliance could pluck away the israeli state from zionism and
imperialism, integrating it, as a lay and multi-national state, in a
peaceful and harmonious way, with all the peoples of that region.
Unfortunately, this can not be accomplished all of a sudden. For this
movement to take place the internal contradictions of the zionist
project have yet to explode. As we have seen, peace itself of some sort
could be instrumental on this. For it to have consistency, however, it
would be important to have the fall of the saudian house and the other
monarchies of the Golf, followed by a - regenerative - second wave of
arab nationalism throughout the region (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq) and also in the Maghreb. The autocratic and corrupt elites should
be wiped away by an ample grass-roots movement, on which a place of some
relevance should be given to the independent organizations of the
proletariat.
For all this to happen though, it is necessary start by snatching the
banner of popular protest away from the hands of the islamic
foundamentalists and other reaccionaries. The zionist-imperialist
agression produces and feeds continuously the moslem integralism. From
Algeria to Afghanistan, the strategic alliance of these two false
enemies is everyday more difficult to desguise. To break this vicious
circle, reintegrating the proletariat and the popular masses of the arab
nations among the vast world community of peoples in struggle against
imperialism, that is the challenge for the next decades.
|