Committee for a Workers’ International

Draft statement on the Middle East:
19 March 2002

Sharon’s dead-end policy –

Carnage brings Middle East to the brink of war

Tens of thousands of socialists and activists around the world celebrated International Women’s’ Day on Friday 8 March. By horrific contrast in the Middle East it was marked by unbelievable carnage where the body count mounted by the minute. Israeli Defence Force (IDF) tanks, armoured cars and heavily armed soldiers stormed into refugee camps on the West Bank and Gaza Strip with missile firing helicopters and F16 fighters circling overhead. To the sound of exploding stun grenades and with green beams from laser-sighted-weapons bouncing off buildings, they unleashed a deadly wall of fire in a series of brutal operations against an enraged Palestinian population. In 24 hours, 44 Palestinians, including a ten-year-old boy, were slaughtered and an IDF soldier was shot dead. Among the casualties were Red Crescent doctors who had been targeted by IDF forces when they attempted to reach the wounded. This was the highest level of fatalities in any one day of the 17 month long intifada. Later IDF operations were the biggest military manoeuvres since its invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Rather than being a military operation as part of the Israeli regime’s "war on terrorism", it is a campaign of state terror against Palestinians who are outgunned and with their backs to the wall.

Within a day suicide operations by Hamas and the Al-Aqsa brigades resulted in the deaths of 12 Israeli civilians in the coastal town of Netanya and a crowded café in Jerusalem. Over 84 Israelis were wounded in these horrific attacks.

Incredibly, Gideon Meir, a Foreign Office spokesperson for the reactionary Sharon coalition government said in the aftermath of these suicide attacks: "What Arafat is looking for tonight is a regional war and Israel will not let him do it" (The Observer, 10 March 2002). Sharon, in a similar vein, outlined what passed for the "strategy" of his beleaguered government: "We are in a war with a cruel and bloodthirsty enemy. We must cause the Palestinians losses, casualties, so they understand they will gain nothing by terrorism. We must hit them and hit them again and again, until they understand" (The Observer, 10 March 2002). But Palestinians did understand – they felt that the Israeli government was intent on crushing the Palestinians, reoccupying the West Bank and Gaza and perhaps even re-enacting 1948 when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from their homes as a result of the action by Israeli military forces. However, they drew different conclusions than the Sharon government expected. With their backs to the wall and their existence threatened, they refused to be intimidated and resisted.

Senior IDF officers announced prior to invading the refugee camps that "all men aged between 14 and 45 (should) surrender peacefully and you will soon be returning to your homes in good health. If not you may be hurt". Those thousands taken prisoner were blindfolded and handcuffed before being taken away. Palestinians have drawn the historical analogy to the announcements made by the Nazis before invading the Jewish ghettos in many European cities during World War II – especially since in Tulkarm on the West Bank those arrested had numbers written on their arms before being taken into custody. However, actions like these are the preserve of all regimes that attempt to subdue a people in revolt using military force.

Full-scale war?

The last two weeks have been the most tense since the beginning of the "Al-Aqsa intifada". Once again the region has teetered on the edge of full-scale war – but this time much more closely. Attack followed attack with increasing rapidity and intensity. The Israeli regime was unable to stem the tide of Palestinian retaliatory attacks and despite its overwhelming strength in weaponry was seen to be unable to control the situation. Arafat stood by on the sidelines (together with his security force leaders and the rest of the Palestinian Authority leadership) timidly pleading with Colin Powell, US Secretary of State "to stop the Israeli escalation" while ordinary Palestinians, the autonomous Tanzeem and Al-Aqsa brigades (linked to Fatah, Arafat’s political organisation) and Hamas used different tactics to oppose these latest IDF incursions. If this situation continues for any longer there is a real threat of widespread and possibly uncontrollable protests by the masses in the Arab dictatorships of the Middle East. Throughout the IDF incursions into the refugee camps there have been daily anti-US demonstrations in the main university in Cairo against the visit of Dick Cheney, US vice-president to Egypt and the continuing IDF military action.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is undergoing a process of ‘Lebanisation’: The IDF is intervening in unfamiliar and hostile terrain which they are not used to fighting in – the refugee camps have high building and population densities, with narrow streets. They face an extremely antagonistic population and moreover one which is not prepared to be subdued or flee their homes. Traditional methods of attack such as the use of tanks are not widely applicable. The Palestinian militias, although possessing less sophisticated weaponry are highly mobile, motivated and can melt away quickly after any clashes to be hidden or aided in their escape by the local population. Unlike the situation in South Lebanon, the Israeli army does not have a proxy army on which they can rest in the Occupied Territories. Having committed themselves to a policy of a more vicious crackdown, these difficulties provided and impetus for ever-more brutal military repression of the Palestinian population by the IDF generals and the Sharon government in a desperate attempt to gain results.

Lebanisation

As an Israeli journalist in an article entitled "Sir, it’s the wrong war!" commented: "The commander and all his colleagues…would be well advised to read a good book about guerrilla warfare, such as Mao Tse-Tung’s treatise, which tells the guerrilla fighter: Never confront the regular army. When the army attacks you disappear. When the army is not ready, you attack.

"For example: The army surrounds Arafat in Ramallah, Destroy a Merkava tank in Gush Katif. A whole brigade invades Balata; Get out and send a single fighter to kill the team of a checkpoint near Ofrah. A brigade attacks Jenin. Get out of their sight and infiltrate Atzmona settlement.

"Since Chief-of-Staff Mofaz and his senior officers don’t even understand the nature of this struggle, they are failing…One after another, they use all the methods that have already failed in Algeria, Kenya, South Africa, Vietnam and a dozen of other countries" (Ha’aretz, 9 March 2002)

The spiralling violence caused terror amongst the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. There have been numerous warnings from these quarters ever since the invasion of Afghanistan by US imperialism of the rising tide of anger amongst the Arab masses towards the US administration and the role of its client state in the region - Israel. These have grown louder since the Bush administration has made it clear that it intends to take military action to unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A Gallup opinion poll in the Arab states on the eve of Vice-president Dick Cheyney’s visit to the region showed 45% of the population were extremely hostile to US imperialism’s role and intentions in the region. This figure rose to 70% when the scenario of an actual US attack against Iraq was put forward.

This is what lay behind the recent peace proposal by King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. Even the US administration, characterised by its unilateralist approach to foreign policy, was forced to abandon its previous position of support for Israel’s attempt to crush the Palestinian uprising, and issued a mild rebuke via one of the supposed "doves" in the administration, Colin Powell. For the first time in history, the US backed a resolution in the UN Security Council which spoke about "the vision of a Palestinian state existing beside Israel." Previously the Bush administration’s public position was to ignore the horrific situation in Israel and Palestine. The "change" in tone is only token and is cynically designed to attempt to ease the way to win support amongst reactionary Arab regimes for military action against Iraq. As Al-Rayah in Qatar commented: "It seems that the USA…is again seeking to repeat its historic game with the Arabs. It is attempting to calm the down with regards to the central Palestinian issue and obtain their silence over an attack on a sisterly Arab country" (13 March 2002)

The inability of US imperialism, Israeli capitalism, the Arab regimes and the Arafat ruling clique to implement a solution that will solve the extremely bitter national conflict in the region has led to a qualitatively different situation in Israel and Palestine. The room for manoeuvre for all capitalist politicians is narrowing by the hour. Important new features are apparent which make the possibility of an all out conflict more likely in the short term.

The spiralling bloodshed - slaughter on a grand scale in which workers, youth and the poorest sections of society on both sides of the national divide are the casualties - has horrified ordinary people internationally. The brutality of the IDF has enraged millions more. It has never been clearer that all capitalist politicians involved in the Middle East are merely cynically defending their own interests. The political elites involved have no ability or wish to either ensure genuine national liberation for the Palestinian masses or guarantee the security and social and economic welfare of the Israeli population.

There has been a qualitative increase in the scale and intensity of IDF military action. The decision to invade the refugee camps, ostensibly in the search for "terrorists", in reality is a declaration of war on the Palestinian masses as a whole and is designed to terrorise them into submission. It is also clear that the Israeli military elite have given the go ahead for any Israeli soldier to fire on any Palestinian with a weapon without warning. The Israeli military have also obviously ended their practise of warning their Palestinian counterparts before bombing Palestinian Authority (PA) targets. This explains the more recent rapidly climbing death toll. Both these decisions on their own are enough to spark off a much wider conflict when their cumulative effects begin to be increasingly felt.

Grim determination

The increased brutality of the IDF actions has had the opposite effect that was intended. It has galvanised the Palestinian masses who feel their existence is threatened. Apathy and demoralisation which previously gripped large sections of the Palestinian population has been replaced by a grim determination to fight for their existence. The stepping up of IDF military action in the refugee camps after the US announcement that they were sending "peace envoy" Zinni to the region enraged Palestinians even more. They regarded this as a cynical ploy by the Israeli regime to make a pre-emptive strike prior to the arrival of Zinni and so that they could make a show of their withdrawal once he had arrived.

As a result when the IDF announced that all Palestinian civilians should abandon the areas of the refugee camps which were to be invaded, none did. In fact it was the members of the Palestinian militias who withdrew from those areas of the camps to preserve their fighting capability and strike at Israeli military targets elsewhere. This represents an important development in consciousness. It shows there is a close identification between the Palestinian masses and the militias. But also, it indicates that historical lessons have been burned into the consciousness of the ordinary Palestinians. In 1948 Israeli paramilitary forces terrorised and drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. Many of the Arab leaders also called on Palestinian civilians to leave areas of conflict "for their safety". This resulted in the creation of the refugee camps which litter many Arab countries of the Middle East and is referred to amongst Palestinians as Al Naqba – The Tragedy.

These developments in consciousness and a certain increase in morale also arise out of the development of more sophisticated tactics of armed struggle by the Palestinian militias. This together with the grim determination of the Palestinian to fight for their lives has led to an increase in the numbers of Israeli soldiers killed. During the previous 16 months of the Intifada, one Israeli soldier died for every twenty-five Palestinians killed. Now the ratio is one Israeli soldier for every three Palestinians. In the last month, 33 Israeli soldiers have been killed – this a higher figure than at any time during the Lebanon war.

On 14 February 2002 Al – Aqsa brigade fighters ambushed and destroyed a Merkava 3 tank which had been sent into Palestinian territory to retaliate for previous attacks on Israeli positions. On two occasions the Qassam 2 missiles made by Hamas have been fired from inside the PA into Israel. Events like these are seen damaging blows to prestige of the Israeli military elite. Clearly demonstrating the priorities of the Israeli military and political elite, the response to attacks like these is far more brutal than when suicide bombers kill scores of civilians inside Israel.

A number of attacks have now taken place on military checkpoints - over 100 of which are permanent now. These checkpoints have more than anything become the most hated symbol of post-Oslo rule. Their existence means daily humiliation, beatings and killings for thousands of Palestinians. The checkpoints, referred to by one Palestinian analyst as "a factory for suicide bombers", have driven home the point that the Palestinian Authority is not made up of contiguous territory but a number of divided and enclosed Bantustans. The IDF calls this arrangement "tiger skin" – the West Bank is divided into 63 parcels of land and Gaza into six different zones. Checkpoints are a daily reminder that the Palestinians live in prisons where the guards are both Israelis and Palestinian. The checkpoints have become the means by which economic blockades are put into action and collective punishment implemented. They crystallise the memory of all the suffering which the Palestinians have had to endure since the Oslo "peace accords" were signed in 1994.

Society crumbles

It is not just the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority which has crumbled as a result of military attack – so has society. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been periodically barred from working in Israel since September 2000. The embargoes on export of Palestinian goods have severely damaged the agricultural sector – one of the mainstays of the Palestinian economy. The level of stillbirths has doubled and mental health problems have rocketed. Over 65% of the population in Gaza live below the poverty line. 400 000 Palestinians out of a working population of 845 000 people have been unemployed for over a year. Even middle class Palestinian living standards have been devastated with savings standing at zero. One of the only cohesive factors in society – and a powerful one at that - is the struggle for national liberation and against a new reoccupation. These figures are dry statistics. But behind every figure is an example of how the Palestinian masses have nothing else to lose and are desperately in need of a leadership that matches their sacrifice.

Arafat’s failure to provide any leadership during this latest onslaught has further undermined his authority and conversely increased that of the Al – Aqsa brigades, Hamas and the Tanzeem. This shows what a monumental miscalculation the latest step up in military activity has been for the Israeli ruling class. Many of the leaders of groups like the Al-Aqsa brigades and the Tanzeem are also members of Fatah – Arafat’s political organisation. It is an indication of his diminishing authority and the increasing pressure from ordinary Palestinians that groups like these are becoming more heavily involved in suicide bombings and attacks against the IDF. However, this does not mean that they are under his direction. They act autonomously and but remain in Fatah not wishing to come into open conflict with Arafat and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority until this becomes a liability in maintaining their support base amongst the population.

Some reports have pointed to an increase in Arafat’s support. This represents a rallying against an enemy seen as being intent on the destruction of the Palestinians. It has not changed the attitude of many activists to his betrayal of the Palestinian masses. It has only arisen because of the house arrest that Arafat has been under for the last two months as a result of the IDF blockade of his compound in Ramallah on the West Bank. The attitude of many Palestinians would have been that during this blockade Arafat has suffered the same sort of conditions as the majority of the population without bending his knees.

His refusal to make more concessions did not last long – in return for arresting all those deemed responsible for the assassination of the Israeli Tourism Minister, the IDF lifted the blockade. Opinion polls and street protests over the next few weeks and months will show how short lived Arafat’s increase in popularity was, if as is likely he continues to compromise with US imperialism and the Israeli regime. Prior to the latest IDF military operations, there were a number of demonstrations outside Palestinian Authority prisons to protest against the arrest by the authorities under the directions of the Israeli regime of Palestinians regarded as responsible for "terrorist" attacks. In many cases these turned into riots which resulted in prisoners being released – in some cases by force.

If Arafat’s authority crumbles completely and sections of his security apparatus split away from him, then Tanzeem leaders such as Marwan Barghoutti in the West Bank will break their links with Arafat. Barghoutti is one of the leaders who have reflected in a distorted way some of the pressure amongst the masses and the debates on tactics that have taken place amongst activists. There are differences in the approach of the Palestinian militias: Hamas and Al – Aqsa activists have continued to carry out suicide bombings. It is an indication of Palestinian desperation that parents of suicide bombers say after their deaths that they wish all their children would be honoured by being martyred in this way. The suicide bombers are motivated by what they see as heroism, and by huge anger against the atrocities committed by the Israeli regime. Mass resistance to armed IDF intervention is one thing, but suicide bombings are another.

The CWI believes that the tactics of suicide bombings are incorrect and have the opposite effect to that intended. Rather than undermining support for the Israeli regime’s military campaign against the Palestinians, it serves to drive large sections of the population into the arms of the most reactionary right – wing elements in society. It undermines support for the Palestinian struggle for national liberation amongst workers and youth internationally. It results in the death of activists who with correct tactics and strategy could play a vital role in leading the struggle over a number of years.

Role of armed struggle

A somewhat different approach is shown by Barghoutti. Previously he called for a resurrection of the mass struggle of the Palestinians which characterised the initial stages of the Intifada. More recently he has argued for armed self-defence and that the checkpoints should become targets as part of the struggle of the Palestinians. Under conditions that exist today the Palestinian masses have no option but to defend themselves – arms in hand. However, what role should military tactics play and how should they be directed? It is true that the present IDF operation shows that the Israeli ruling class cannot achieve a military solution against the Palestinian masses. However, neither can the Palestinians achieve genuine national liberation through a purely military struggle. The Israeli regime’s ability to intervene military is in the last analysis based on its social foundation in Israeli society, i.e. support for its actions amongst the Israeli Jewish working and middle class. Undermining this support is a vital step along the road to genuine social and national liberation. This does not mean that the Palestinian masses should postpone their struggle until the majority of Israeli Jews have accepted the need for the existence of a genuine Palestinian state. Part of the aims of that struggle should be to speed up an understanding amongst Israeli Jewish workers and youth that Israeli capitalism means continuing war in the region and social and economic devastation for those expected to fight on behalf of the Israeli ruling class. The biggest weapon in the hands of the Palestinian masses is the development of political ideas and strategy which can organise mass opposition to the occupation as well as undermining support for the social, economic and military support for Israeli capitalism amongst Israeli Jews. Issues of military strategy and the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves flow from this.

A successful struggle would require a mass struggle of the Palestinians under the democratic control of elected popular committees of struggle. Demonstrations of tens of thousands in the areas surrounding the checkpoints would demonstrate the united opposition to continuing occupation by the IDF. An element of this struggle would require the formation of self-defence committees but again their activities should be under the democratic control of the masses. Through the use of loudspeakers, leaflets and wall murals the activists should explain to the conscripts sent into the territories that Israeli Jewish workers and youth face two options: either a continuing cycle of war and bloodshed (in which the Palestinians would fight to the end) or a struggle to overthrow capitalism in Israel and Palestine followed by genuine and open negotiations with elected representatives from both sides of the national divide who would base their deliberations on the recognition of the national, religious and ethnic rights of all participants, and would discuss how to use the resources of the region to guarantee the security and living standards of all who live there.

However, even leaders like Barghoutti will never go down this road. While they articulate the anger of the Palestinian masses, they see themselves as future leaders of a Palestinian state with the wealth, power and prestige that such positions bring. The Tanzeem leaders know that to expose the role of capitalism in Israeli society, its lack of genuine democracy and the class divisions it causes, would immediately pose the same questions in the minds of ordinary Palestinians about the conditions they live under. They also instinctively understand that the adoption of anything like a working class programme of struggle would also pose a threat to the other Arab regimes in the region, some of which they look to for support.

The paradox of the situation is that despite the reactionary nature of the Sharon government and the extremely high levels of violence, the conditions for such an approach have never been more advantageous. The neo-liberal policies that have been adopted by successive governments in Israel have shattered the state support previously offered in the early years of the state. Over 70% of the Israeli population feel that Sharon is not delivering on social and economic issues. There is an intense feeling of betrayal amongst the majority of the Israeli population that while the majority have had to sacrifice their lives in five wars, the corrupt minority have lined their pockets with enormous wealth. As Ha’aretz commented on the first anniversary of Sharon’s government: "Sharon is winding up his first year with the country in a state of regression in the spheres of defence, economy, politics and social welfare" (5 March 2002). An indication of the level of bitterness has been the fact that for the first time in a near war situation, Israeli workers have continued to go on strike and demonstrate against the social and economic policies of the government. As a community leader from Sderot, an Israeli "development" town – a euphemism for poverty stricken towns earmarked to settle new immigrant arrivals – recently commented: "Poverty affects us far more than the Qassam rockets" (The Observer, 10 March 2002).

Over the last couple of weeks there has been a marked change in the media’s coverage of events in the Middle East which is a reflection of a changed situation. Previously the press was filled with articles outlining the weakness of Arafat’s position. Now it is Sharon who is in the firing line. This is because of the collapse in his support on security issues which over the last fortnight means that 49% of the population feels he has no answers on security issues. The more right-wing western press have turned their fire on Sharon because he is seen as disrupting the drive towards targeting Iraq.

Sabra and Chatilla man

Newspapers like Ha’aretz have nicknamed him "Sabra and Chatilla man" and subjected him to excoriating criticism, printing articles which explain that even his closest friends believe his administration is dead in the water and an entitling a commentary of his anniversary speech: "The Lion meowed". Quite clearly this is because the policies to quell the Palestinians have not worked and led to an increase in suicide bombings. Avishai Margalit, an Israeli commentator, summed up the mood in Israel succinctly: "I don’t believe there is a rational plane here that lead anywhere. For most people there is no alternative. I don’t remember ever, including me as a kid during the independence war or during the worst days in Jerusalem, when the future hung in the air and people were as depressed as they are now" (Washington Post Service, 7 February 2002). For the first time in Israeli history, Jewish parents are encouraging their children to move abroad because they see no future for the next generation. This is an extremely significant development for a country that has in the past been characterised by fierce national pride and whose existence has been based on the drive for immigration from the rest of the world.

Nowhere is this questioning more sharply posed than amongst the 322 reservists who have signed a letter refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories. The speed with which this movement developed and the language it uses is also a significant indication of the mood amongst large layers in society. It is true that in March 1978 a group of reserve officers signed a letter calling for an end to the government’s adventure in Lebanon - which eventually led to the formation of Peace Now. But the language these reservists have used is far sharper as the following quote shows: "We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements are bound to be evacuated in the end. We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements. We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people". Even representatives of the elite brigades have huge doubts about the most recent incursions into the refugee camps. In an article in the mass circulation Yediot, a Golani brigade soldier commented: "To die in order to catch wanted men? When the first tank starts its engine , the wanted men will be gone. Why die for demolishing houses? For every house that falls, Israel will get hit three times by terrorists. Why die for alerts? Get serious. One day, when we go, they’ll be waiting for us with the surprise of the century." (4 March 2002) A military analyst in the same paper described the IDF force as "a clumsy army moving in a cumbersome manner, re-enacting over and over the image of Goliath facing David" (International Herald Tribune, 15 February 2002).

It seems like the Sharon government has completely forgotten the lessons of the first intifada – that there can be no lasting military solution to the Palestinian question. This is not merely because of Sharon – or any other leaders’ - stupidity or brutality, although this is undoubtedly a factor. It reflects the extremely limited room for manoeuvre that Sharon has. In a desperate attempt to keep the ruling coalition together he has zigzagged from one policy to another first appeasing the reactionary right wing parties in his coalition and then Labour. He also believes - as do the generals – that the attacks on Israel are damaging the prestige of the army and therefore in the long term their own positions. It is these conflicting pressures that have shaped his actions over the last few weeks. Under pressure he has blurted out the tactics behind the whole peace process when he said recently: "It won’t be possible to reach an agreement with the before the Palestinians are hit hard. Now they have to be hit. If they aren’t badly beaten, there won’t be any negotiations. Only after they are beaten will we be able to conduct talks." (International Herald Tribune, 5 March 2002) In other words – create facts on the ground, hammer the Palestinians into the ground and then we will give them some crumbs. These are not peace negotiations but imposed terms of surrender.

Sharon, even from the point of view of the ruling class is on the road to disaster. An interview with Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet (Israeli security services), commented, "Yasser Arafat neither prepared nor triggered the Intifada. The explosion was spontaneous, against Israel…and against the Palestinian Authority, its corruption, its impotence…The peace process is what allowed Arafat to be seen as the head of national liberation movement rather than a collaborator of Israel. Without it he can fight neither against the Islamists nor against his own base, The Palestinians would end up hanging him in the public square" (Le Monde, 22 December 2001)

While Sharon may not be looking to overthrow Arafat or assassinate him, then the Palestinian Authority may crumble and Arafat may fall as a cumulative result of the attacks. Some extreme reactionaries have previously encouraged Arafat’s demise and hoped for a Hamas led regime to replace him so that the IDF could crush it without being concerned about international reaction. It is likely that the Israeli regime has already had discussions with senior PA members like Saeb Erekat or security chiefs Dahlan or Rajoub in the hope it will be "moderates" like these who follow Arafat. But this is an extremely risky option for Sharon to follow. If Arafat is pushed out as a result of Israeli actions, the reaction amongst the masses could bring the Tanzeem leaders to the forefront of leadership. And even this is unlikely to be a simple replacement of Arafat with another leader. Arafat has survived by manipulating and exacerbating tensions and differences between his opponents and juniors. These will explode to the surface if he is removed and could result in tensions within the PA possibly leading to clashes and elements of a civil war.

Sharon, under pressure from US imperialism has indicated he has dropped his demand for 7 days of quiet before being prepared to start negotiations. He has ordered a pull-out of Israeli forces from the refugee camps just as Zinni, the US envoy arrived in Israel. Kofi Anan, head of the United Nations, expressed the fears of many capitalist politicians internationally of the destabilising effect of the latest Israeli incursions when he said: "You must end the illegal occupation. You must stop the bombing of civilian areas, the assassinations, the unnecessary use of lethal force, the demolition and the daily humiliation of ordinary Palestinians." However, many ordinary Palestinians will be hard pressed to envisage the "vision of a Palestinian state" agreed by the UN security council when all they can see at the moment is bloodletting on a grand scale.

The position of support for hard-line action against Arafat by the Bush administration has not fundamentally changed. They are prisoners of their September 11 propaganda of the "war against terrorism" as far as Israel is concerned. More importantly the Republicans face important mid-term elections shortly where US Jewish votes will be important to them. Their pressure on Israel is also coldly calculated to ease the way to support by Arab leaders of proposed action against Iraq. This is why they have given cool support to the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s peace plan. However, only the granting of genuine national liberation and full IDF withdrawal from the Occupied Territories is likely to satisfy the Arab masses. This is certainly not going to happen in the short time that is left before a US-led attack against Iraq and is impossible while capitalism and imperialism dominate the region.

One of the features of the 1990s was the enormous disgust for politicians amongst the working class internationally. In the neo-colonial world this mood was magnified a thousand fold when it came to the role of US imperialism in Africa, Asia and Latin America. However, this feature is mirrored by the enormous arrogance and lack of understanding of US imperialism to the masses in the neo-colonial world. This is particularly the case when it comes to the Arab and Muslim world. Bush’s advisers underestimate the level of anger that exists and how it could explode should the US attack Iraq. They believe that a minimal verbal support for the Saudi peace plan should buy quiet during a new "Desert Storm". But they fail completely to understand that the world situation is completely different to that which existed at the time of the Gulf war in 1991-92. It is generally understood that the Oslo "peace accords" arose out of the aftermath of the Gulf. But it is precisely the experience of Oslo and the increased oppression it has brought which means that the same confidence trick – writ large – cannot be played again. A whirlwind of Arab anger awaits US imperialism if it attempts an invasion of Iraq. This could threaten a whole number of Arab regimes with overthrow if they do not forcibly oppose US imperialism’s war aims.

Saudi peace plan

The Saudi plan proposes normalisation of relations between all Arab countries and Israel, in return for Israeli withdrawal to its 1967 borders, and the granting of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. This is basically what was on offer in the Camp David talks in December 2000 when Bill Clinton organised a last ditch attempt to get agreement between Arafat and Ehud Barak, the then Israeli Prime Minister. In fact the Saudis have in private briefings conceded more in advance of any negotiations on the question of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees, and land than Arafat did. At the time Arafat refused to sign the deal because of huge pressure from below.

As well as fearing the consequences amongst the Arab masses of continuing IDF attacks, it represents an attempt by Abdullah to consolidate his own rule within Saudi Arabia and curry favour with the US following recently leaked press stories about strains in their relationship and increasing pressure from the Saudis for the US to remove their bases from Saudi Arabia.

But it is almost impossible for the Sharon government to agree to these demands. It is unlikely in his weakened position and against the background of the vicious nature of the last 17 months of intifada that Arafat could sell such a peace deal to the Palestinian masses. The most that can be expected over the short term is the start of some kind negotiations; cease-fire or a lessening in the level of violence.

Two extreme right wing ministers of the National Union have left the coalition government. It is possible that Netanyahu, former Likud leader and Prime Minister may align himself with these forces to launch a campaign for the next elections either inside or outside Likud. The fragility of the coalition becomes clearer every day. A strong alternative with large support does not exist at the moment. It would be disastrous for the Israeli ruling class if Netanyahu was re-elected under present conditions. It is for this reason that a candidate such as Ami Ayalon, former Shin Bet chief, an individual not dirtied with involvement in Israeli politics could be persuaded to put his hat into the ring.

Ayalon favours what he calls unconditional withdrawal of the IDF into Israel proper with a full recognition of a Palestinian state. However, it is easy to propose from the sidelines what seems like a sensible solution to the problem – even from a liberal capitalist point of view. However, implementing such a policy when in power would be a completely different question because of the opposition of the right wing reactionary forces in Israeli society. A demand for unconditional IDF withdrawal could gain momentum in Israeli society under conditions of continuing bloodshed. But the implications of this course of action would bring to the fore all the intractable issues that have caused the failure of all other attempts at agreement on a capitalist basis. These are the settlements, Jerusalem and the holy places, the occupation of the Golan and the issue of refugees. Any move to forcibly evacuate the hundreds of settlements even if initially successful would lead to revenge attacks on Palestinians living in Israel and pave the way to elements of civil war and the ethnic cleansing of Israeli society.

Buffer zones

All that Sharon has offered is the creation of buffer zones which would involve annexing Palestinian territory in an attempt to keep out suicide bombers. This could be the first step to a unilateral separation in which the Israeli government would declare where the borders of a Palestinian state should be. This could only be achieved by a prior invasion of the IDF and the occupation and annexing of the Palestinian territory on which some of the Israeli Jewish settlements stand and the evacuation of others. As the CWI has explained before the results of such action could lead to a Balkan-type situation in Israel with the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Israeli Palestinians and a vicious and bloody civil war.

The basis of any genuine solution to the cycle of violence in the Middle East lies in the poor peasants, workers and youth on both sides of the national divide not the corrupt capitalist politicians who make war in the name of peace agreements. The overthrow of capitalism in the region and its replacement with a socialist Palestinian state and a socialist Israel as part of a socialist confederation of the region remains the only answer to the gloomy prospects which faces future generations in the region otherwise. This is why the building of strong working class movements on both sides of the national divide in Israel and Palestine, committed to these ideas, is such an urgent task for socialists in the region.

The CWI fights for:

The immediate withdrawal of the Israeli army from all areas of the Occupied Territories – the Gaza and the West Bank

An end to the blockade of Palestinian towns and villages.

For a mass struggle of the Palestinians under their democratic control to fight for genuine national and social liberation.

For the establishment of popular, grass-roots committees, that will provide the basis for a genuine workers leadership. The right of these committees to be armed for the purposes of defence organised under the democratic control of the masses.

A struggle of Palestinian workers and youth (in Gaza and the West Bank) against their double political and economic oppression by Israeli and Palestinian capitalism, and for raising their standards of living.

An end to the use of Israeli soldiers as cannon fodder by the Israeli ruling class and army generals. For the right of all conscript soldiers and reservists to refuse to serve in the territories.

For a struggle by Israeli Palestinians against institutionalised racism and their treatment as second-class citizens.

For an end to mass unemployment and poverty. For a massive increase in public spending in Israeli Palestinian towns and villages in infrastructure, job creation, health, housing and education and for the writing off of all local council debts.

For a struggle of the Israeli working class - both Jewish and Palestinian - to overthrow capitalism. A struggle of the Israeli working class to overthrow capitalism.

For a socialist Palestine alongside a socialist Israel as part of a voluntary socialist confederation of the Middle East with guaranteed democratic rights for all national minorities.

CWI Statement, 19 March 2002

---

For other articles on the Middle East go to the sitemap
To get a broader image of what the Socialist Party stands for, visit our main site