Solidarity with the proletariat. Abolish Israel and Palestine.

In 2017 the working-class of Gaza rose-up against Hamas in protests over blackouts and shortages. They stormed the offices of the electricity company and cursed the names of the leadership of Hamas and Fatah.

Movements inside Israel proper have mirrored these movements of the working class, as elsewhere.

The situation in Gaza has been at breaking-point for several years and Hamas, fully aware of the growing potential for a social explosion in the territory which they control, have therefore been forced into action.

This is true and pertinent. It is also true of Israel as a whole and globally.

In order for this to happen, we must understand the need for a proletarian-revolutionary organisation encompassing the working-class of Israel and Palestine, not as Israelis or Palestinians

At present this appears as a utopian dream, unlike the following:

Proletarians with and without uniform, let’s organize together against the capitalist system of exploitation of the human labor that lies in the root of all the misery, all the State oppression and all the wars!

Let’s turn this war into class war for the global communist revolution!

Class War – October 8th, 2023

ICT statement: The Latest Butchery in the Middle East is Part of the March to Generalised War

Internationalist Communist Tendency:

Thus the working class on both sides is driven to massacre defenceless populations and allows itself to be massacred in order to wage a so-called "holy war" or defend a supposed "democracy", in reality for the interests of opposing bourgeoisies, who can perpetuate their domination only by the oppression, exploitation and blood of the proletariat.

Since when are the forces of order (Hamas militia and the Israeli Defence Force, in this context) counted amongst the working class? These are the mercenary vindicators of the proletariat's mortal enemy, the bourgeoisie. And since when have victims of these forces of order allowed themselves to be massacred? We are unwitting victims. Although unwitting we are not necessarily believers in any ideological justifications for the massacres. In fact, we must necessarily reject ideological justifications whatever form these take.

Solidarity with the proletariat.

Can one have solidarity with oneself?

Abolish Israel and Palestine

Abolition of the nation state? The task of the working class of each nation state was to raise itself to be the foremost class, to form its dictatorship over all other classes. It is certain, globalist factions of the bourgeoisie would wish the demise of the nation state to better lord it over the proletariat.

Since when are the forces of order (Hamas militia and the Israeli Defence Force, in this context) counted amongst the working class?

Since "working class" meant being dependent on the labour market to survive. It's an economic relation to the means of production, not a moral one.

Abolition of the nation state? The task of the working class of each nation state was to raise itself to be the foremost class, to form its dictatorship over all other classes.

You think the end goal is a series of national dictatorships?

Workers have no nation of their own... Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

Manifesto of the communist party, 1848

Yes, the Communist Manifesto is a well known text. But how would you interpret that quote in your own words?

The task of the working class of each nation state was to raise itself to be the foremost class, to form its dictatorship over all other classes.

Israel has the highest rate of malnutrition amongst the elderly of any developed country. It is at breaking point, as is my own country, with a major portion of the working class unable to provide heat for their homes this winter. The crisis is general and worsening but obviously not equal, no one said it was.

Thank you, Craftwork, good points, the issue is the type of organization. A worker’s organization must be one that workers are free in it, I mean free of bosses, leaders, ideological flatterers, extremists, etc.

Craftwork, you cite the 2017 insurgency against Hamas offices in Gaza. There have been serious insurgencies in Israel proper and the West Bank in much more recent times that have resulted in many working class deaths at the hands of the forces of order. Are these not also contributing factors to the terrible reactions by Hamas and the IDF?

Therez are problems in the advanced capitalist countries, but these are not societies at breaking-point. There's no prospect of social implosion

I would argue that the great conflagration that has occurred in France, Chile, Iran, etc, etc over the past five years comes as close to social implosion as has occurred in Gaza during the same period. And I would not be so unwise as to dissect and disconnect this movement.

ICT statement: The Latest Butchery in the Middle East is Part of the March to Generalised War

ICT wrote: Let’s not forget that Hamas was originally supported by Tel Aviv to counter Yasser Arafat's Fatah and the "left-wing" armed formations of the PLO.

A nice contribution, but you might want to re-write this to say that Israel supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, out of which Islamic Jihad and Hamas emerged. They didn't directly support Hamas/the Islamic Resistance Movement (founded in December 1987 during the First Intifada), which called for Israel's destruction. One of their first leaflets from January 1988 was already calling for recapturing all of former Palestine and establishing an Islamic state. See also the Hamas Charter from August 1988, which repeats such views.

Islamic Jihad and Hamas emerged. They [It: the State of Israel] didn't directly support Hamas/the Islamic Resistance Movement

We are not privvy to the inner machinations of the state unless the state wishes us to be.

Craftwork:

The depth of the crisis in Gaza is far worse than Israel's.

You say this as if there are two separate crises. The political, economic, social crisis of one is the political, economic, social crisis of the other. Gaza is, or was, a major source of labour power for Israeli capital. I admit ignorance as to what extent Israeli capital is still reliant on migrant labourers from Gaza. If the economic crisis of Israel has reached such a point that labourers from Gaza are no longer needed then the prospect for those now heading to the south of the strip is diabolical. More likely, however, labour power from Gaza is still an integral part of the Israeli economy and the current situation of forcing the working population south is a means of reducing the price Israeli capital pays for that labour power.

westartfromhere,

Two questions,
1 - You said people in your country won't have enough resources to keep themselves warm this winter, which country?
2 - What are all these discussions about? Is it about Craftwork's idea of non-national approach to workers revolution against capitalism in Middle East? I am lost!

I didn't say "people". I said a major portion of the working class. Why do you need to know my location?

The title of the discussion references two nation states and infers that the proletariat will abolish both, which is a laudable sentiment but not practical at present. The bourgeois solution to the class struggle in historic Palestine is twofold. A one state solution (either a State of Palestine or a State of Israel); or a two state solution, which pertained prior to the ongoing inter-national war in that region. The proletariat resolves a continuation of the class struggle.

westartfromhere

I didn't ask for you "location". I just wanted to know if your country is affected by sanctioning against Russia. You may be in another country!

OK, thank you for explaining what the discussion is about.

You reject Craftwork's solution, what is yours? When you reject a solution, you need to offer a solution, especially when you mention that the his is utopia. Your solution should not be:
1 - Bourgeois type
2 - Utopia
So, what is it?
My solution is just like Craftwork. If he qualifies the type of the organization, them we both are in the same boat.

Your solution should not be:
1 - Bourgeois type
2 - Utopia
So, what is it?

Your question reminds me of the Yiddish proverb I read in the Situationist journal, Spectacular Times, along the lines, When faced with two choices, choose the third.

I can offer no solution. What I believe will happen is that the Gaza and the West Bank will be incorporated into Greater Israel. Perhaps sentimentally, I believe that this will put "Palestinian" and "Israeli" workers on a more equal footing of exploitation by capital.

I can offer no solution.

This is the first choice.

What I believe will happen is that the Gaza and the West Bank will be incorporated into Greater Israel. Perhaps sentimentally, I believe that this will put "Palestinian" and "Israeli" workers on a more equal footing of exploitation by capital.

Sorry, I do not respond to prophecy!

The bourgeois solution to our class struggle in historic Palestine was previously the dismemberment of the working class into two bodies of workers, Palestinian and Israeli. This solution having been found to be untenable, the bourgeoisie seeks a new solution. Namely, the combination of the two parts into one body. This is how I interpret events occurring on the ground. This is one proletarian's interpretation, not prophecy.

Furthermore, the reaction by the bourgeoisie is a direct consequence of our proletarian-revolutionary organisation, our uprising, our intifada. Not just in the immediate region but worldwide. The proletariat is not the object but the subject of history. Our world has begun. It is not ideal, as some would imagine it. The violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie—its shaking off—entails a violent reaction by the "mercenary vindicators" of that class, by its forces of Order to the force of anarchy, the proletariat.

The violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie—its shaking off—entails a violent reaction by the "mercenary vindicators" of that class, by its forces of Order to the force of anarchy, the proletariat.

Anarchism is not believing in violence, one can be anarchist and be a very peacefull person.
I know it is hard, just calm down, stay away from stressful news for a while.

I am calm, noslavery. I have a wood fire burning in the hearth. I have food prepared for dinner in pots for my extended family. I have 16 beers and two bottles of soda pop to drink. Tonight we are celebrating because, despite the onslaught by our enemy, our people are still rising.

Good!

Another article by the ICT responding to comparisons of the Hamas attacks to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,

The very real atrocities being committed by the Israeli state are not exceptional. They are not the result of "settler-colonialism" (lately a fashionable concept in academia), nor because Zionism is the "new Nazism" (a trope promulgated by the far right itself).

The Palestinian population, particularly those massed in the Gaza Strip, has been forced to survive in inhuman conditions, for at least seventy-five years, suffering oppression, brutality and violence of all kinds from the Israeli bourgeoisie, i.e. its state.

I agree that there's not much in common between the Hamas attacks and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, but what exactly is inaccurate about describing Israel as a settler-colonial project? Herzl and other Zionists conceived of creating a Jewish state in Palestine as a colonial project themselves and even used the word "colonial" (e.g. in Herzl's The Jewish State). Where also does the bourgeoisie factor into modern-day proletarian settlers/Zionists, who believe that Palestine is historically and Biblically theirs, moving into the West Bank and trying to expel the Palestinians already living there? The Arab-Israeli conflict can't just be reduced to some class analysis; Zionist ideology is something one actually has to consider.

adri

This is my view about the situation. Arab-Israeli conflict is Hamas-Israeli conflict in Gaza because Hamas rules (as far as I know) in Gaza. Hamas is domineering group in Gaza and Zionists are domineering group in Israel. Shared class content (deriving from their dominance) of both is obvious, they are capitalists, they are patriarchal, and both use hierarchical social organization for their social dominance. To fool their victims, who are women and workers and other subjects, Israel uses nationalism and racism, and Hamas uses nationalism and religious prejudice. As Israel has more industrial and military resources, by judging from their approach in history, I consider them imperialist too. By imperialist I mean having tendency to expand territories. This, of course, doesn’t mean that Hamas is not imperialist. Hamas is too weak to be one, but there is nothing in their domineering tendency and ideology to tell us that if they be in the position of Israel, they wouldn’t do the same. Solution to the current situation doesn’t exist in the framework of domineering relationship. The solution is only possible if victims of domineering tendencies could overcome the ideological indoctrination and challenge the status que. Sometimes the disaster is unavoidable immediately, but completely avoidable if the cause is known and the solution works. International pressure on both sides can help just like aspirin or like those medicines that can stop a disease to get worse until the final solution becomes available!

Solution to the current situation doesn’t exist in the framework of domineering relationship.

The solution to the current situation is the bourgeois solution. The big fish will eat up the small fish. Any other solution dreamt up, by Islamists, by Leftists, by Iranian imperialism, is bound to fail as it contradicts the tendency of capital to attract more capital, and labour power. Money goes to money, and we go to the dogs.

I can attest to the ideological indoctrination of the Israeli working class but it is not ideology that holds us prisoner. It is the barrel of a gun. Sadly, or happily, it is only the military power of the proletariat in class warfare that overcomes, shakes off, capitalist domination.

There is no "final solution" to the antagonism between capital and labour. There is just our ongoing revolution, our class struggle. We will never write The End.

... it is not ideology that holds us prisoner. It is the barrel of a gun. Sadly, or happily, it is only the military power of the proletariat in class warfare that overcomes, shakes off, capitalist domination.

It seems it is not bad to be passive proletariat as armed class conscious proletariat will create communist society for us. All we have to do is to make sure that we do not caught in the middle of the gun battle. After victory of our class conscious sect, we will pay tribute to our martyrs in the new society every year.

"Fires burning on the street Tonight. Only soul-jahs on the street Tonight. Stay off the streets tonight if you can't stand the heat tonight!" Sound advice, noslavery

westartfromhere, It was not an advice, it was description of the consequence of an approach. This approach that arm struggle is important, not removing ideologies from the heads.

The pressure for expansion comes from the Orthodox settlers, the cosmopolitan, secular sections of its society prefer Israel be stable and normal

The pressure for expansion comes from the economic requirements of the State of Israel. Orthodoxy is sometimes an ideological cover. True, the middle classes prefer normality and stability. Part of that normality is to attend a rave without being shot dead or being hauled off by Islamist cops.

Hamas can no more be abolished within its own territory by an invading military force anymore than the Taliban could in Afghanistan.

Unlike the Taliban Hamas don't have a lucrative opium trade to fall back on, just an impoverished Iran.

Since the takeover by the Taliban in August 2021:
1 Opium cultivation in Afghanistan increased by 32% over the previous year to 233,000 hectares – making the 2022 crop the third largest area under opium cultivation since monitoring began.
2 Opium prices have soared following the announcement of the cultivation ban in April 2022.
3 The income made by farmers from opium sales tripled from USD 425 million in 2021 to USD1.4 billion 2022 - the equivalent of 29% of the 2021 agricultural sector value. The sum still represents only a fraction of the income made from production and trafficking within the country. Increasingly larger sums are further accrued along the illicit drug supply chain outside the country.
4 Seizures of opiates around Afghanistan indicate that trafficking of Afghan opium and heroin has not stopped. Afghanistan supplies 80% of global opiate demand.
5 Most of the 2023 opium crop must be sowed by early November; farmers will take decisions on whether and how much opium poppy to plant amid severe economic disruption and humanitarian crisis, continued high prices for opium and uncertainty about how the de facto authorities will enforce the cultivation ban.

Craftwork, I think you are overestimating the extent to which conflict damages Israel via labour shortages. Israeli capitalists can and do employ workers from other countries to plug holes, as has famously been done in the agricultural sector with Thais. If the skilled worker shortages bite too hard, then they will make exemptions for "essential workers" – as is done during practically all wars everywhere.

Neither can the impetus for expansion be reduced to Orthodox settlers. For one, not all the settlers are Orthodox, and not all Orthodox are settlers or particularly pro-expansion – far from it, large numbers of them are not even Zionists and the ultra-Orthodox infamously refuse to serve in the army. The maintenance of Israeli hegemony over extant Palestinian society has a class basis even for the "cosmopolitan, secular" sectors of Israel since it provides them with a reservoir of cheap labour, and since "un-repressed" Palestinians would rapidly threaten the particular political hegemony they have built up for themselves.

The reason why the Abraham Accords process is/was so appealing to Israel was because it would allow them to normalise relations with regional powers and access the economic benefits of that, while also maintaining the repression of Palestinians. It's not one or the other.

There is not much economic value in the conquest of new land, and it has negative strategic value, since it increases the risk of conflict.

What about the territories Israel has been occupying since the 1967 War and expanding settlements in? Doesn't that create a risk of conflict with Palestinians and other Arab countries, as illustrated by the recent Hamas attacks? What about Israel's formal annexation of the Golan Heights in 1981, which the Trump administration was first to internationally recognize in 2019? Doesn't that create tensions with Syria? It doesn't really matter if there is not much strategic sense to the Israeli right's policies; they're still pursuing them. One could also add that it doesn't make sense for Israel to respond with disproportionate violence against Palestinians, as history has already shown that such violence only leads to more conflict and reprisals, rather than ensuring Israel's "security." The criticism that Israel is one of its own biggest security threats is a view I'd largely share.

The pressure for expansion comes from the Orthodox settlers, whilst the cosmopolitan, secular sections of its society prefer Israel be stable and normal, so that they can do business in the Arab world and beyond.

I'm not sure I would even call them Orthodox, as Orthodox Judaism is fairly anti-Zionist, with some even refusing to speak Modern Hebrew owing to its association with Israel/Zionism. Orthodox Jews, along with others, originally rejected the Zionist enterprise of creating a Jewish state in Palestine, since according to Jewish tradition and Biblical interpretation they were supposed to live in exile until the coming of the Messiah. The pressure for expansion also isn't just restricted to settlers. Do you think Netanyahu and other government officials, who refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria (i.e. their Biblical terms), are not also interested in taking over the West Bank? Nearly every Israeli government since Israel's founding has shown an interest in annexing the West Bank and getting rid of the Palestinians already living there, so it's quite strange to argue that this drive for expansion is only coming from "Orthodox settlers."

Israeli capitalists can and do employ workers from other countries to plug holes

Primarily from Gaza and the West Bank, hence the ongoing civil strife since 1985 [edit: 1987, it was my wage labours that began in '85, hence my confusion] in fits and starts, hence the need to channel that strife into elections in a semi-autonomous Palestinian Authority. Now that the rule of Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza has become untenable the State of Israel must seek another solution. Ultimately that solution is the re-occupation of the Occupied Territories.

Palestinian labour is the key to the puzzle. As Israeli labour realises that its own country is occupied territory the house of cards falls. And this is true for the whole world.

With regards to the Palestinian day labour force of the State of Israel I found this Reuters article informative, published just prior to the new round of inter-bourgeois fighting. I will quote it in full with my emphasis in the text added in bold type, but not including the photo of Israeli workers queuing at the Erez checkpoint:

Israel reopens Gaza crossings, lets Palestinians back to work after two weeks

According to IMF figures, per capita income in Gaza is only a quarter of that of Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The World Bank says unemployment is nearly 50%.

And this, from AnalystNews:

The stranded Palestinian workers desperate to reach their families in Gaza

Israeli authorities did not respond to a request for comment.

Also think "from the river to the sea, abolish the bourgeoisie" is miles better than simply "abolish Palestine." I just don't feel like the latter slogan really resonates with Gazans being bombed etc.

Or maybe "we don't need no bourgeoisie"

I was just pointing out that "abolish Palestine" is maybe not the best slogan, especially considering how Israel is bombing Gazans to bits and driving them from their homes in what might be the second Nakba, depending on what Israel plans on doing next. It's a bit insensitive, that's all. Not to mention, there also isn't an actual Palestinian state to begin with. Hamas runs the Gaza Strip, and one can hardly describe the Palestinian Authority as a unified Palestinian state exercising full control in the West Bank. "Abolish Israel and Palestine" makes it sound like there is some kind of symmetry between Israel and Palestine, when one is actually occupying and making life extremely difficult for the other.

I think we'd both agree about a one- or two-state solution offering no way out from the problems stemming from capitalism.

www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2024-01-27/gaza-and-beyond-the-bitter-fruits-of-capitalism-nationalism-and-imperialism

A lengthy piece on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and more, from the ICT. Worth a read

What exactly is inaccurate about describing Israel as a settler-colonial project?

If Israel is the colony and its citizenry the settlers, who is the colonial master?

colony
noun
1. a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country.
"Japanese forces overran the French colony of Indo-China"
2. a group of people of one nationality or race living in a foreign place.
"the British colony in New York"

adri wrote: I agree that there's not much in common between the Hamas attacks and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, but what exactly is inaccurate about describing Israel as a settler-colonial project? Herzl and other Zionists conceived of creating a Jewish state in Palestine as a colonial project themselves and even used the word "colonial" (e.g. in Herzl's The Jewish State). Where also does the bourgeoisie factor into modern-day proletarian settlers/Zionists, who believe that Palestine is historically and Biblically theirs, moving into the West Bank and trying to expel the Palestinians already living there? The Arab-Israeli conflict can't just be reduced to some class analysis; Zionist ideology is something one actually has to consider.

westartfromhere wrote: If Israel is the colony and its citizenry the settlers, who is the colonial master?

There are different types of colonialism, and settler colonialism need not involve an actual metropole or home empire that sponsors or benefits from these colonial endeavors. Historically, Britain obviously fulfilled this role, as they attempted to fulfill the Balfour Declaration under the British Mandate, in the face of much resistance from the indigenous Arab population of Palestine. The important point is that settler colonialism entails the attempted replacement of one population by the settler population. Speaking of today, Israel is not the colony; the West Bank, Gaza, and other territories Israel has been occupying and expanding settlements in would be the areas subjected to Israeli settler colonialism.

I'm also not sure why some people seem to think that a critique of capitalism is somehow incompatible with acknowledging historical and contemporary Zionist-Israeli settler colonialism. For what it's worth, the recent ICT article linked to above appears to recognize the colonial nature of both historical and contemporary Zionism:

For the settler right and ultra-religious leaders, Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, this was a betrayal since it is part of their strategy for colonisation of all of the land of Israel.

In his book The Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question (1896) he called for Palestine to become a home for Jews. Zionism thus arose in the colonial period of mainly European imperialism; a period in which there was an assumption that the rest of the world was almost empty or that the inhabitants were so “backward” that they could either be ignored or simply colonised for their own good. Zionism was also marked by this characteristic. Herzl wrote that a Jewish homeland in the Middle East would also benefit European interests; "we should there form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilisation as opposed to barbarism."

If applied to Israel, the academic field of settler colonial studies has within it a cross-classist implication that the settler, the proletarian, has some connection with the coloniser, the capital. This is rarely true. Most migrants to Israel, and formerly to Palestine, came with no capital to their name. The bulk of the colonising capital came from European and American capitalists who have settled elsewhere. "If god gave us a Promised Land, why not Switzerland?"

"Historically, Britain obviously fulfilled this role" of coloniser politically by means of "the Balfour Declaration under the British Mandate". Yet, the "settlers" of the State of Israel were not from Britain, by and large, but from Germany, Russia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Argentina, India, Eritrea, Palestine, Morocco... Economically, the greatest coloniser has been the USA/UK. Primarily, with military aid to suppress the proletariat.

Now, because of the great concentration of capital in Israel relative to its neighbours, capital has a need to expand territorially. No longer capable of doing this by "peaceful" means it reverts to military means for expansion — conveniently, for itself, massacring a large portion of the surplus labour in the process.

If applied to Israel, the academic field of settler colonial studies has within it a cross-classist implication that the settler, the proletarian, has some connection with the coloniser, the capital. This is rarely true.

Yet, the "settlers" of the State of Israel were not from Britain, by and large, but from Germany, Russia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Argentina, India, Eritrea, Palestine, Morocco... Economically, the greatest coloniser has been the USA/UK. Primarily, with military aid to suppress the proletariat.

No, there actually is complicity for individual Zionists who chose to migrate to Palestine as opposed to other places, especially when there were alternatives. Not every Jewish person who migrated to Palestine was also escaping life-threatening persecution. Some could have easily stayed where they were and attempted to improve their situation. Though conditions were harsher in Eastern Europe, Jewish movements like Bundism frequently attacked the Zionist movement and urged Jews to stay and fight anti-Semitism wherever they found themselves. The blame is also on other countries that supported the Zionist movement or were under Zionist influences. The U.S., for example, refused to accept more Jewish refugees during and after the Second World World/Holocaust owing in part to the lobbying efforts of Zionists (i.e. Zionists wanted Jews to go to Palestine instead). The people who chose to migrate to Palestine, especially when they had other options or were not in immediate danger, were certainly participants in this Zionist settler colonialism. As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

The idea that Zionists were building a "haven" for Jews in Palestine was also just as untrue then as it is now, unless one considers the countless wars and conflicts with Palestinians and adjacent Arab countries as constituting a "refuge for Jews." The Bundists frequently pointed out the fact that Zionist colonization was, first of all wrong, and secondly only creating tensions with the much larger indigenous Arab population. See for example the first edition of the Bund Bulletin (Vol. 1 No. 6) following the creation of the State of Israel in May 1948:

Bund Bulletin wrote: Jewish Socialists never shared the opinion of Zionists that an independent state in Palestine would solve the Jewish problem. Nor do we share it today, after such a state has been established. We have always believed that the only solution for the Jews, as well as for mankind in general, is the reconstruction of the world on a socialist and democratic basis. Our belief remains unshaken even now, when the Zionists achieved, at least temporarily, their goal. During half a century the Bund movement tried to win the Jewish working population for the international struggle for Socialism. Non-Jewish Socialists rather than the Jewish nationalists were for half a century our nearest allies. The establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine does not reconcile us with Jewish nationalism and cannot change our traditional attitude. We belong to the international Socialist camp and we will remain there. (2)

This argument is also just ridiculous if you're trying to say that proletarian (or agricultural) settlers can't ever be at fault due to their class position; proletarian settlers in Israel are absolutely deserving of blame if, for example, they try to expel Palestinians in the West Bank.

...complicity for individual Zionists who chose to migrate to Palestine... ...deserving of blame...

Let's suppose that this minority of migrants to the State of Israel is complicit in the crimes of the state; the masses airlifted and shipped to "Zion" after being expelled, blameless.

Are we to apply this same logic to those crossing the English Channel illicitly? Those that "voluntarily" cross are complicit with the UK State in the bombing of Yemen, for example?

And what of the majority of the Israeli population that are not settlers but were born in the country? Are these also all complicit in the crimes of the state? How so?

In 2015, a UN Conference on Trade and Development report suggested that Gaza could become uninhabitable by 2020.

In reality, it was a military force of the whole bourgeoisie combined, raining huge tonnage of capital in the form of bombs and smaller arms, that achieved this aim by 2023.

I will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect... free flow of international commerce as necessary.

President Biden, on US/UK... bombardment of Yemen, 1/11/2024

The civilization and justice of bourgeois order comes out in its lurid light whenever the slaves and drudges of that order rise against their masters. Then this civilization and justice stand forth as undisguised savagery and lawless revenge.

westartfromhere wrote:

Thus the working class on both sides is driven to massacre defenceless populations and allows itself to be massacred in order to wage a so-called "holy war" or defend a supposed "democracy", in reality for the interests of opposing bourgeoisies, who can perpetuate their domination only by the oppression, exploitation and blood of the proletariat.

Since when are the forces of order (Hamas militia and the Israeli Defence Force, in this context) counted amongst the working class? These are the mercenary vindicators of the proletariat's mortal enemy, the bourgeoisie. And since when have victims of these forces of order allowed themselves to be massacred? We are unwitting victims. Although unwitting we are not necessarily believers in any ideological justifications for the massacres. In fact, we must necessarily reject ideological justifications whatever form these take.

They would be counted as lumpenproletarians, but in this case they aren't inherently excluded from the working class or any revolutionary potential. One could of course distinguish between the enthusiastic militarists and patriotic fanatics and proletarian conscripts, but since this becomes a distinction without a difference as soon as the conscripts actively serve as the running dogs of the bourgeoisie, only socialist revolution can eface the objectively lumpenproletarian and counterrevolutionary character of the "useful idiots" of capital. Internationalist propaganda can and has successfully prevented the use of workers as dummies fo the State, but you're correct to think that under current conditions the chances of a socialist revolution in Palestine any time soon are negligible. This can be changed.

westartfromhere wrote:

Solidarity with the proletariat.

Can one have solidarity with oneself?

This isn't the question at all. The proletariat is a real force in world history. Besides, at present, national distinctions artifically divide it, making solidarity with the proletariat of a nation-state a fact.

westartfromhere wrote: Abolition of the nation state? The task of the working class of each nation state was to raise itself to be the foremost class, to form its dictatorship over all other classes. It is certain, globalist factions of the bourgeoisie would wish the demise of the nation state to better lord it over the proletariat.

The success of the "demise of the nation" under capitalism would be impossible under the conditions of capitalist imperialism, but besides such as move would be progressive as it would result in total centralization of capital and the erosion of the national boundaries which divide the workng class. The globalising fores of capitalism have always been lauded by Marxists as prelimnary steps towards the socialist revolution; just as local regionalism (once upheld by aristocrarts, now by small owners) is reactionary in comparison to bourgeois patriotism, so bourgeois patriotism -even if less brutal and openly reactionary or more 'humanitarian'! - is reactionary when compared to global capitalism and its current world-historical iteration, state monopoly imperialism. Marx:

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx clarifies, contra the Prussian Lassalleans, that the bourgeoisie has been a revolutionary class insofar as it is "the bearer of large-scale industry". This is why capitalism is only a "transition" to the communist mode of production and

[C]apitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.

westartfromhere wrote:

Workers have no nation of their own… Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

Manifesto of the communist party, 1848

5. "The working class strives for its emancipation first of all within the framework of the present-day national states, conscious that the necessary result of its efforts, which are common to the workers of all civilized countries, will be the international brotherhood of peoples."

Lassalle, in opposition to the Communist Manifesto and to all earlier socialism, conceived the workers' movement from the narrowest national standpoint. He is being followed in this - and that after the work of the International! It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle - insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states.

Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875

noslavery wrote: Thank you, Craftwork, good points, the issue is the type of organization.

 -  Just one of Marx, Engels and Lenin's theses is enough to bury all this empty talk: "Revolution is not a question of forms of organisation".

noslavery wrote: A worker's organization must be one that workers are free in it, I mean free of bosses, leaders, ideological flatterers, extremists, etc.

What does it mean to imply that the proletariat should be "free of leaders"? This postulate surely assumes that a proletarian leader would necessarily be in conflict with proletarian interest, i.e. so that it would be "less free", less powerful, etc. And who is counted as "extremist"? To most, Marxism is considered "extremist". There are different kinds of "extremism". Further, the very existence of a workers' organisation implies that workers are not free, since class society is in play.

westartfromhere wrote: Craftwork, you cite the 2017 insurgency against Hamas offices in Gaza. There have been serious insurgencies in Israel proper and the West Bank in much more recent times that have resulted in many working class deaths at the hands of the forces of order. Are these not also contributing factors to the terrible reactions by Hamas and the IDF?

In other words, the class contradictions are sharpened.

westartfromhere wrote:The title of the discussion references two nation states and infers that the proletariat will abolish both, which is a laudable sentiment but not practical at present.

It isn't practical because of a lacking of class consciousness. If one should avoid the slogan "abolish Israel and Palestine" on the basis of it being a "utopian" political demand in present conditions one can as easily argue one should cut out the very political goal for a socialist revolution. A mystified reification of political goals in less "utopian" terms will serve no productive purpose.

westartfromhere wrote:The reaction by the bourgeoisie is a direct consequence of our proletarian-revolutionary organisation, our uprising, our intifada.

This implies a nonexistent similarity or correlation between the bourgeois Islamist intifada and the proletarian socialist revolution.

westartfromhere wrote:The proletariat is not the object but the subject of history.

This Cartesian distinction cannot be found in Marx. 

westartfromhere wrote:The violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie - its shaking off - entails a violent reaction by the "mercenary vindicators" of that class, by its forces of Order to the force of anarchy, the proletariat.

The proletariat is not "the forces of anarchy"; on the contrary, anarchy consists of reactionary petty-bourgeois politics opposed to proletarian organisation.

adri wrote:The Arab-Israeli conflict can't just be reduced to some class analysis; Zionist ideology is something one actually has to consider.

Why? It's just another foolish and reactionary idea and doesn't offer something that clear class analysis doesn't.

noslavery wrote:By imperialist I mean having tendency to expand territories.

Imperialism is better defined by export of capital.

westartfromhere wrote:The solution to the current situation is the bourgeois solution.

This is further reification of the actual forces at play. Even if we will end up with the solution of the bourgeoisie, it's pathetic to present this reactionary course of the interests of one class as inevitable and singular.

westartfromhere wrote:The big fish will eat up the small fish. Any other solution dreamt up, by Islamists, by Leftists, by Iranian imperialism, is bound to fail as it contradicts the tendency of capital to attract more capital, and labour power.

Except the classic Marxist solution, that of the proletarian socialist revolution, clearly doesn't.

westartfromhere wrote:There is no "final solution" to the antagonism between capital and labour. There is just our ongoing revolution, our class struggle. We will never write The End.

Of course there is, the victory of one class. We exterminate the bourgeoisie as as class and erase class itself from society. And revolution isn't "ongoing" this moment in Palestine or anywhere else where there isn't an objective revolutionary situation which has yet developed.

westartfromhere wrote:The Israelis will perpetrate some atrocities that outrage global and Arab opinion, undoing the relative normalisation of relations with its Arab neighbours.

Now it's you who's ignoring the tendencies of capital. Outraged opinion can't make a capitalist war.

westartfromhere wrote:The pressure for expansion comes from the economic requirements of the State of Israel. Orthodoxy is sometimes an ideological cover. True, the middle classes prefer normality and stability. Part of that normality is to attend a rave without being shot dead or being hauled off by Islamist cops.

Which is why the Israeli bourgeoisie has tried to create a definite peace with Hamas, and of course failed. Mind you, Hamas too was trying to govern Gaza for Gaza.

adri wrote:Do you think Netanyahu and other government officials, who refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria (i.e. their Biblical terms), are not also interested in taking over the West Bank?

They're interested in bourgeois stability and profit, whatever this specifically entails. The bourgeoisie isn't nearly as utopian as you make out.

adri wrote:Nearly every Israeli government since Israel's founding has shown an interest in annexing the West Bank and getting rid of the Palestinians already living there, so it's quite strange to argue that this drive for expansion is only coming from "Orthodox settlers."

The Israeli government depends on the settlers as de facto shock troops against any armed movement for Palestinian national liberation, and needs to keep them happy.

adri wrote:Also think "from the river to the sea, abolish the bourgeoisie" is miles better than simply "abolish Palestine." I just don't feel like the latter slogan really resonates with Gazans being bombed etc.

The problem with this is that anyone can uphold this slogan, even a Stalinist partisan of national liberation under Hamas who is still nominally anti-capitalist even in this instance. The former slogan is more utopian since it's more vague, and tries to evade the real division of interest between the national and the class perspective.

Craftwork wrote:I take your point that maximalist demands for socialism or anti-nationalism are unrealistic.

But this isn't the issue at all. What will softening demands accomplish, in anyone's eyes?

adri wrote:"Abolish Israel and Palestine" makes it sound like there is some kind of symmetry between Israel and Palestine, when one is actually occupying and making life extremely difficult for the other.

From the standpoint of proletarian revolutionary organisation, there is absolute symmetry.

adri wrote:

If applied to Israel, the academic field of settler colonial studies has within it a cross-classist implication that the settler, the proletarian, has some connection with the coloniser, the capital. This is rarely true.

No, there actually is complicity for individual Zionists who chose to migrate to Palestine as opposed to other places, especially when there were alternatives.

This is quite a moralistic non sequituir; what's the relevance of the abstract moral responsibilties of Zionist settlers?

adri wrote:The U.S., for example, refused to accept more Jewish refugees during and after the Second World World/Holocaust owing in part to the lobbying efforts of Zionists (i.e. Zionists wanted Jews to go to Palestine instead)

I'd say instead that they simply had no reason to accept them in the first place (granted, after the fact it might have made them look good).

adri wrote:This argument is also just ridiculous if you're trying to say that proletarian (or agricultural) settlers can't ever be at fault due to their class position; proletarian settlers in Israel are absolutely deserving of blame if, for example, they try to expel Palestinians in the West Bank.

But talking about who's "at fault" and who's "deserving of blame" will do absolutely nothing towards a real solution for the proletariat. If anyone has to be "at fault", it's capitalism itself.

adri wrote: The Arab-Israeli conflict can't just be reduced to some class analysis; Zionist ideology is something one actually has to consider.

Substance Enjoyer: Why? It's just another foolish and reactionary idea and doesn't offer something that clear class analysis doesn't.

For one because it has never simply been a matter of an Israeli bourgeoisie attempting to ethnically cleanse a Palestinian working class or peasantry. The Zionist movement in fact drew most of its early support from impoverished and persecuted Jews in Eastern Europe. The word “pogrom” itself emerged out of the Russian Empire during the late nineteenth century, which shows the sort of horrific conditions Jews there faced. Although the World Zionist Organization, which was quite successful in gaining its upper-class backers, most notably the British government, facilitated the migration of Jews to Palestine, most of the people who went there and came into conflict with Arabs/Palestinians were not members of the bourgeoisie. While there is certainly a class dimension to the Arab-Israeli conflict, it’s foolish (and contrary to Marx and Engels) to think that just understanding which businesses in Israel/Palestine stand to profit from what equips you with all you need to know.

The capitalist class might also be united on keeping workers “in their place,” but it’s also quite inaccurate to portray them as being completely harmonious among themselves. Rival capitalists within a particular industry certainly do not share the same interests. Likewise, some sections of the Israeli bourgeoisie might oppose the Palestinian bourgeoisie on the basis of their Zionist convictions that Palestine is historically and Biblically theirs; one would have to know something about Zionism in order to understand that, however. On the other hand, many Israeli businesses also rely on the exploitation of cheap Palestinian labor, which the current conflict has disrupted. In short, the world is complicated, and that’s part of why it’s important to not just reduce the Arab-Israeli conflict (or anything for that matter) to an issue of class, which doesn't really explain why the Netanyahu government is currently bombing Gazans to bits.

"The proletariat is not "the forces of anarchy"; on the contrary, anarchy consists of reactionary petty-bourgeois politics opposed to proletarian organisation."

Anarchy is an environment without rulers An-arch, to be petite-bourgeois requires a grande bourgeois which you can't have without some form of dispossessed class since a grande bourgeoisie monopolises the means of production and consumption. Bourgeois society is many things, free of rulers it is not.

The scare quotes aren't needed, that's its literal meaning. As to your question, by becoming the means that abolishes the class system.

Substance Enjoyer, you substitute "leader" for "ruler" in the definition of anarchy.

Naturally, the working class have leaders of our own who stand in opposition to the rulers of mercantile society.

Jerome Rodrigues is a working class leader. Macron, a bourgeois ruler. N'est ce pas?