Saturday, May 15, 2004

Israel/Tel-Aviv Second appearance of the anarcho-communist initiative in the huge peace demo: TWO STATES FOR TWO NATION - TWO STATES TOO MUCH 15/05/04

The Zionist left and center peace initiative, agree in principle to give back the territories occupied 1967... on condition they are exempted from the obligation for the 1948 refugees. This evening, they assembled people demo from all parts of the country to a huge demo. May be 200,000 who are 5% of the Israeli Jewry. The anarcho-communist initiative assembled about 25 people for distributing the leaflet appended below. Surprising was the absent of the animals rights anarchists of Ma'avak Ehad who had some animals rights action instead. We distributed all the 2000 copies of the leaflets we had, and at the end of the demo when the Zionist sang their nationalist anthem we shout "Zionism is racism".


If the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority will reach a "peace" agreement, it will not result from Israeli wish for "security" to citizens and the Palestinian wish for "independence". It will be - more than any thing else, a part of configuration of international powers' interests that such concept are alien to their way of thinking. The Geneva accords, initiated by politicians and businessmen, if signed and applied as intended (two different things) will be expression of these interests, and so will be any other political agreement one can imagine. The label most appropriate for the description of the treatment of the Israeli state towards the inhabitants and citizens who are not included in the category of full rights Jews is APARTHEID: a chauvinist separation rule, which confiscate the land from the peasants, restrict the freedom of movement of people in their way to work, and even obstruct the ability of the Palestinian capitalists from developing its economy. All this, while trying to get the cooperation of the Palestinian leadership.

Some people, who regard themselves as peace activists asked themselves seriously, beyond the official answers of the left, what can be the reasons for the common policy towards the Palestinians of all Israeli governments - both from the left and the right? We claim that it is not simply the conquering of one people by the other stile of the ancient empires; nor just the expression of the belief in a undivided land of Israel drawn from the bible; neither is it stemming from the pressure of the strong lobby of the settlers' leaders, though it surely play a role too.

The apartheid rule must be seen as something that serves several powerful interests. First, it served the Israeli economy - meaning the Israeli capitalists, by supplying cheap labor power which was mainly used by the small and medium employers in the manufacturing and building businesses. "The Israeli Arabs" who were under military rule during the 1948-1966 years are serving this role and more than these, the inhabitants of the regions occupied in 1967. Only lately, as if as result of the El-Aktsa Intifada, and the massive "import" of temporary work immigrants, the free access to that work power was stopped. The big Israeli companies, profited from the 1967 occupation mainly because it opened for them a big consumer market with no competitors. The military establishment, which was always a powerful one in Israel, and its top personal enjoyed and still enjoy the ensured careers in the government and its industries after finishing the military service, have the vested interests to prolong the apartheid (and the conflict) to ensure their position and their rights. It is the interest of the United States of America, which is helped by the services given to it by the Israeli state, in the region and all over the world, since the 50s of the previous century, that Israel will stay under a permanent threat so it will continue to need its support.

* * *

A reminder: serious talks about the establishment of a Palestinian state started only 15 years ago, towards the end of the first Intifada. Nearly all of leaders of the main Zionist left and the more radical left of the present, that seems they succeeded to rewrite their history in a kind of Orwelian way, did not even imagined such an agreement. Even at the beginning of the Oslo period they still talked about autonomy. The PLO and the anti-Zionist left were talking about the establishment of a secular state of all its citizens. The Palestinian authority did not exist at all till Israel helped to establish the PLO in this role. The peace agreement of two states for two nations entered the agenda only when following the first Intifada, and the changes in the global world economy, it started to fit the interest of sections of the Israeli and US capitalist.

What such a peace means? If we continue the description of the situation in the extended Israel as apartheid, and compare it to that which existed in South Africa, we can see that PEACE means the subduing of the Intifada to a comprador Palestinian leadership that will serve Israel. PEACE like that, called often "normalization", is related to processes occurring all over the world under the label of globalization, and initiatives for regional businesses cooperation to culminate as "free trade region of all the Mediterranean countries" All over the world, agreements of such kind lead to the take over of the local economies by multi-national concerns, infringement on basic human rights, deterioration in the status and conditions of females and children, social violence and destruction of the environment.

Will such agreement and peace bring at least the cessation of violence? We do not think so: the economic hardship and gaps will increase, the refugees problem will stay un solved, and the legitimacy of international economic support given to the huge number of unemployed in the Gaza strip and parts of the West bank (as partly happened after the Oslo agreement and even lately). In such case, they will have to relay on "their" state - a small and dependent mini-state that is doubtful if it will be up to it.

States act within a system of interests which common people like us are not high on their concerns. If we want to bring about any change for the better, to decrease gaps and to stop the mutual killing, we better not behave as obedient puppets of political leaders financed by Europeans and Americans, who do not do any thing more the a democratic protest, but act instead to fell down the national partitions - and mainly resist the military forces that cause mutual and continuous slaughter.

We better not promote a political program, not that of the Geneva accords and not an alternative one. Instead, put on the agenda the demand for entirely different way of life and equality for all the inhabitants of the region. Even if we act in an independent (local) way we still have to remember that as long there are states and the capitalist system will continue, every improvement we succeed to achieve will be partial and under permanent threat. Thus, we have to see our struggle as part of the struggle carried in the whole world against the world capitalism and call for a revolutionary change based on the abolition of the class suppression, exploitation, and the building of a new society - a classless anarcho-communist one. Society in which there will not be coercion by the state, the organized violence will be abolished, the chauvinism will be non existing, and all other evils of the capitalist era will be removed.


No comments: