Israel-Palestine, the Jewish Question and "Shared Narratives" for a homeland.

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
medividedbyyou's picture
medividedbyyou
Offline
Joined: 17-09-14
Sep 18 2014 18:39
Israel-Palestine, the Jewish Question and "Shared Narratives" for a homeland.

​The expression of an optimal plurality must encompass the diversity of groups through inclusivity and dialogue with equal and proportional representation. Narrative justifies the individual truth to the beliefs of both the peoples of Israel and the peoples of Palestine; their shared territory belongs to the domain of the narratives of both peoples. We cannot say that both sides can coexist if we base the solution to the problem of territory upon the division of a territory in its entirety by two states and the separation of both peoples according to their race. Both peoples share the right to remain in their homeland but realistic peace depends on a just narrative that each can share instead of juxtaposing the opposition of sides. Representation must account for unanimous decision thereby recognising egalitarian values, met through the participation of each member of the society no matter what their identity, to ensure democratic plurality.
​We must come at the problem of the Jewish question through the secularization of issues and prioritize the rights of both Israeli and Palestinian citizens as a civil issue. The misnomer of “the historic compromise” signifies the narrative that the Palestinian people's claim to territory must incorporate a two-state solution. Israel as a state exists to facilitate the activity of its religious majority; we cannot abibe that the notion of a historical claim to territory remains valid if its basis relies upon the authority of religious scripture any more than we can prove with any actual certainty the validity and authority of religious scripture. The sincerity of the Palestinian claim to territory arises from their prior indigenous habitation of the land, however, in response to a dominant political system supported by ubiquitous relgious fundamentalism they likewise respond to the Israeli occupation by reinforcing their struggle with an identical zealotry thereby weakening their secular-political efforts. Rather, issues of a tangible nature that lead to compromises, acceptable and mutual to each people, ensure both their coexistence and their shared narrative. Religious fundamentalism obscures the political progress of both groups and polarizes their shared narrative.
​Zionism emerges from Israeli history as an identity of nationality. We must imagine a state in which post-Zionist conditions come about and prevail: conditions that lead towards values that serve democratic principles. From out of Zionism can flourish a new and subsequent movement , a move towards the temporal, a transformation, whereby the situation undergoes a paradigm shift, and a new entity in its entirety and of its own characteristic emerges. The Brit Shalom intellectuals preached a solution to the Jewish question which contributes to the emergence of a movement that satisfies the criteria for Jewish identification with Zionism. We can view Zionism in the spiritual sense, as advocated by the philosopher Ahad Ha'am, as the option for a better model of statehood. Zionism fulfils the spiritual inclination for Jewish identification with a homeland but only a temporal transformation of Israeli society can bring about principles of a democracy not limited by the boundary of Zionism only.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 19 2014 08:30

The problem with this approach is that it starts with 'peoples' and not with the fundamental reality of capitalist society - the division into antagonistic classes. Both the 'Israeli people' and the 'Palestinian people' are made up of a ruling class and an exploited class, with other strata in between, and the problem for those who want to change society is how to develop class consciousness which is by definition internationalist and opposed to the division of humanity into competing national states. We saw elements of this kind of consciousness emerging in the social movement in Israel in 2011, which also identified with the revolts in the 'Arab' world and saw tentative steps towards unifying Jewish and Arab proletarians around the defence of their material living conditions (housing etc). The return to open warfare this year effaced this very embryonic class consciousness, drowning it in nationalist hatreds.
Zionism, whether in the idealised 'spiritual' version of Ahad Ha'am or in its most brutal, pogromist form typified by Betar and the Jewish Defence League, can never be anything but an obstacle to the emergence of class consciousness. Not because it is a specifically 'illegitimate' type of nationalism (as the Trotskyists et al usually argue, in order to bolster their defence of Palestinian nationalism) but because nationalism in any form whatsoever is entirely incompatible with the unification of humanity.

confusionboats
Offline
Joined: 4-01-14
Nov 20 2014 03:09

Alf, I agree with you in principle, but in praxis some form of transitional program is necessary.
I see little hope in some form of spontaneous autonomous protest from either the increasingly reactionary Israelis or the assemblage of botched ideologies that makes up whatever is still defined as 'Palestine'.

The myths of either endearingly caricatured subversive left-wing Jews or the courageous keffiyeh wearing Palestinian guerillas exist largely within the west's imagination. (or perhaps, in circles who have long grown tired of debating this unto the bitter end...)

medividedbyyou, are you suggesting from an Israeli perspective a kind of 'post-Zionism' that would include a return to so-called 'Zionist' ideas whereas 'Zionism' is divorced from nationalism? (i.e. referring to the Jewish cultural revival and not the Israeli Nation-state) I don't really have any qualms with this (and in fact, think it would perhaps help both partisans in this conflict) but I don't think that it has much to do with libertarian communism (strictly speaking...)

also, regarding the recent attacks - does anyone find it strange that the PLFP is said to be responsible, given the religious nature of the attacks? They did put out a press release which condoned the attacks, but I have seen a number of news articles (BBC, CNN etc..) who have framed it as if they were orchestrated by them. The BBC article claims that they have taken responsibility, but nowhere in the press release is that explicit.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Nov 20 2014 10:10

confusionboats, All so-called 'transitional programmes' even if denominated as 'secular' but still based on some territorial nation state have done little more than rearrange the battle lines between competing power groups over their respective citizen/subjects. What other form could your 'transitional programme' take that might have purchase in the real world of global capitalism?

confusionboats
Offline
Joined: 4-01-14
Nov 20 2014 12:45

Marxist-Leninist guerillas who are latching onto random violence as a desperate populist attempt to reinstate power and reinvigorate an either reactionary or just simply no longer radical populace whose leadership has long been, admittedly, conceding too much - indicates, to me, that things have (far from) already begun to fall apart.

All of this, of course, plays into the hands of the Israeli right (not to mention the other various rights with their other various prejudices...)

I support state recognition because I think that it can serve as a deterrent to expansion, which is, I think, what most of the conflict is about at this point.

I'm not trying convince you, I know how pure you all are, I only answered because you asked. tbh, I mostly just use this page for intel

confusionboats
Offline
Joined: 4-01-14
Nov 25 2014 03:18

I'd like to rescind the candid nature of that comment in light of the recent double-binds which I've been forced into