Israel and the Labour Party

As a left-winger in the Labour party I find that whenever the issue of Israel and Palestine are raised I am often at odds with comrades and friends. Each time the subject is raised I find the discussion always veers towards how awful Israel is, or how aggressive the Defense Forces are, or how Zionism equates with racism.

However, there is an alternate, and I would argue more socialistic view.

Let me explain. There can be little or no justification for the current oppression of legitimate Palestinian rights by the Israeli government. Equally, incursions by individual terrorists and members of Hamas into Israeli territory and the use of bombs and rockets against the civilian population is just as unacceptable. As Gandhi stated so eloquently, ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’.

One of the arguments raised by the Israeli right is that they are duty bound under Torachic law to defend themselves under the principle of an eye for an eye (ayin tachat ayin). But this totally misses the central tenet of the concept. The Torah argued that if you offend another and damage their eye, so must you harm your own. Thus under this analysis the Netanyahu government should be treating the Jewish settlers in an identical fashion to the way they treat the Palestinian people. This is clearly not happening.

In the 1980s a Marxist political group (Mapam) proposed a peace settlement where Jew and Arab could live together in harmony, sharing the wealth of the country in socialist co-operation. Experiments such as Kibbutz Tuval in the north of Israel thrived and prospered and Palestinians and Jews forget racial/ religious barriers and worked together for mutual benefit.

One of the key factors behind this success was the underlying philosophy of the kibbutz movement, with its strong association with Habonim Dror and the socialist-Zionist movement. However, a further key to its success lay in the fact that the essence of socialist-Zionism and the peace movement in general rests on the belief that the Palestinian people have a legitimate right to their own separate identity.

These values need today to be reinforced again and it is incumbent on every socialist internationally to campaign for every oppressed people, wherever and whoever they may be. The Jewish people have a right to a homeland; of that there can be no debate. Similarly, there is now a critical need for the UN to help establish and support a fully independent Palestinian state. The only guarantee for the future, security and character of both peoples is if internationally we campaign for reconciliation through a peaceful settlement.

Part of the dilemma for the Israeli right lay in the outposts in the Palestinian territories. These illegal outposts and settlements are major obstacles to ending the occupation and promoting an agreement, as well as an element that contradicts the Israeli national interest. The Labour party, through the Socialist International and the United Nations should fight for the evacuation of the outposts and settlements, while providing the settlers with adequate compensation and seeing to their rehabilitation.

In particular, the Labour party should adopt the following principles:

• The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, including the right to establish its own state alongside the State of Israel.
• Israeli settlers in locations which, after the determination of the permanent borders, fall within the Palestinian State will be able to return to Israel and will receive appropriate compensation. It will not be possible to achieve a permanent agreement without evacuating settlements. During the negotiations the two sides will determine those settlements in which Israeli settlers may remain; settlers will be required to recognize and respect Palestinian sovereignty.
• Jerusalem will not be divided. It will be recognized that members of both nations live in the city, and that both have national and religious rights. The area of the city will be redefined and agreed and coordinated municipal frameworks will be established within its borders in order to enable each community to manage its own internal affairs. Two capitals will exist within the municipal area: the capital of Israel in the Jewish areas, and the capital of Palestine in the Arab areas. The status of the holy sites will be determined through negotiations based on maintaining the religious rights and freedom of worship of all religions.
• The permanent settlement will include a comprehensive solution of the problem of the refugees (from 1948) and the dislocated residents (from 1967). The Palestinian State will be entitled to absorb refugees within its borders according to its own considerations. A compensation arrangement for refugees will be agreed upon with international support. After such agreement is reached, the parties will categorically waive any further claims for the return of refugees, restitution of property rights or the right of settlement in the area of the other state.
• Borders will be open to the passage of goods and workers as agreed upon by the two parties and in line with basic socialist principles. Israel will actively support the Palestinian economy and will help recruit international support and investments to promote economic development of the Palestinian State
  

Tacitus

The way forward for Labour

The candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party continue to vie for nominations and one can only hope John McDonnell manages to secure the 33 necessary votes to place him on the ballot paper. Unfortunately, there is a real danger Diane Abbott’s entry into the race might split the left vote and leave them both sidelined.

The tragic part of this is both candidates are supremely loyal socialists who, if elected, would radicalise the Labour Party in a way not seen since the days of Keir Hardie, Tom Mann, Ben Tillett, Stafford Cripps or Aneurin Bevan. In fact, there is a strong argument that either Diane or John would take the party on a left-wing path that Labour has never truly accepted. After all, when it comes to the election of a leader, the party has a history full of missed opportunities – take for example Hugh Gaitskell against Harold Wilson (who was then a left-winger), Jim Callaghan against Tony Benn, or even Neil Kinnock against Eric Heffer. Even Michael Foot, with all his allegiances to CND and the Tribune Group proved to be a disappointment to many on the left.

Of course, the reality is that, once again, the party will probably adopt a safer route and select an ‘Ed’ or a ‘David’, rather than take the risk of being true to its conscience. Consequently, as committed as he may be, John McDonnell is unlikely to gain sufficient votes to get through to a second round, much less gain the reins of leadership. But this shouldn’t be enough to stop people voting and fighting for John or joining his campaign. A solid left vote for an LRC endorsed candidate would send a resounding message to any new leader that there is an urgent need to push aside the ideas of the New Labour project.

Many of the problems Labour now face stem from a false belief that Tony Blair, Lord Mandelson and Alastair Campbell could be the salvation to all the party’s ills. This right-wing triumvirate convinced members that abolishing Clause IV, changing the rules surrounding conference procedure and restructuring the party would bring electoral success. It was a mythology that kept them at the heart of government for many years, whilst dedicated party members resigned in droves.

The Labour party won the 1997 election for a number of reasons – in part because the electorate were sick and tired of the Tories, in part because the party offered some very real radical programmes, but also, Tony Blair presented as a charismatic, affable politician in whom the electorate could believe; making him a key vote winner. Unfortunately, by 2001 voters were starting to see through the ‘spin’ and Labour started to lose votes. This spiral was gaining momentum by 2005, but because Labour had established a substantial majority in 1997, it allowed the party some leeway. By then the Labour majority in the house of Commons had reduced from 179 to 66. and when Gordon Brown took over as leader in 2007 it was, in many respects, ‘all change’.

By 2007, the UK had lived through 10 years of Blairism, along with the Iraq war and conflict in Afghanistan. The electorate were starting to see through the media hype of the Third Way, Communitarianism and the New Labour project, and like a plumber trying to block the leaks with his finger, Brown struggled to stay in power. All the polls were sending a clear message that voters were unhappy with the Labour government and they wanted change.

At the same time, Clegg and Cameron were being put onto centre stage as clean faced, bushy tailed young men with new ideas that could cure the ills of the country. Of course, everyone knew we had been through a recession and that we would all have to draw our belts in, but unfortunately, in the 2010 election, the party was unable to expose the underlying right-wing nature of modern Toryism and Liberalism.

So now we have to fight back the right to be considered reputable and worthy of the right to govern this country. We have to show the country and the people in it we can still bring equality and fairness to everyone. And we have to remind electors that once Labour brought to this country an exciting programme of nationalisation, alongside a planned economy and a welfare state where no-one was allowed to fall by the wayside. Labour needs to show that it is a party that brought a national health service where anyone could have free medical care at the point of need, regardless of their background, their upbringing, or their wealth.

If Labour can do that, Conservatives, Liberals and all their wealthy hangers-on will quake with fear and a roller coaster of left-wing ideas will engulf this country, destroying the Con-Dems and pushing them back into the pit of iniquity from which they came.

Tacitus

Day one - Initial views of the Con-Dems

Well the Liberal Democrats and Tories sat cheerfully side by side in the House of Commons today - it was virtually impossible to tell them apart. Only a slight slip from Simon Hughes calling a Tory an Honourable gentleman rather than my honourable friend. No doubt as the sycophancy spreads through the Libs he'll get used to it.

Meanwhile the average Joe on the street will have to pay for their dishonesty and lack of integrity - an end to the Future Jobs Fund, an end to child trusts and undoubtedly thousands of civil servants are waiting to hear how much longer they will have to wait before they join the unemployed.

Why am I reminded of Margaret Thatcher?

Tacitus