Weekly Worker 433 Thursday May 23 2002
Letters
Two states
As a member of International Socialist Organization (USA), I am an irregular reader of the Weekly Worker. Although I often disagree with your positions, I have a certain respect for the intellectual abilities of your writers. I have been surprised, then, at the shallowness of your analysis of the problem of Palestine and Israel.
In your articles on the question of one state or two states in historic Palestine (particularly ‘Two states for two peoples’, May 16), leaving aside the fact that the Palestinian state you propose would probably be divided into at least three parts and be otherwise rather messy geographically and demographically, you neglect the actual economic situation in the area.
The vast majority of the economies of the Gaza Strip and West Bank are dependent on Israel and, although real independence would make it possible to export directly to the outside world, helping the matter somewhat, a separate Palestinian state would still economically be largely a satellite of Israel, with a large proportion of Palestinian workers employed in Israel as cheap labour. As those of us with experience at the US-Mexico border know, this would be a step backwards for the ability of the Palestinian working class to organise. A separate state in this situation would simply be a joke.
The only ways a separate state would be viable are: either Palestinians enjoy equal citizenship in Israel, in which case the reason for a separate state disappears, or the enterprises in the settlements are expropriated, which would “in all likelihood require a military conquest” (to use a formulation from your theses, again in Weekly Worker May 16).
A more short-term one-state solution may be harder to reach, but it is not at all true that a two-state solution would be a step towards a federation; even if what is envisioned in the Oslo accords is replaced by a ‘pure’ two-state solution (no small task itself), the situation would not be fundamentally different from what it is now.
I also take issue with your position on the relationship between the US and Israel. First, on the question of nuclear weapons, there is all the difference in the world between defying the UN and defying the US; as the US itself has proven on numerous occasions, including looking the other way during Israel’s nuclear programme and its assistance to that of South Africa. Although Israel’s interests may diverge from those of the United States, the fact that Sharon did slow down his military operations for the bombing of Afghanistan suggests that Bush is saying one thing in public and another in private, one thing for Europe and the Arab world and another for Sharon. Israel is tremendously dependent on the United States, not just for military aid, but for economic aid, investment, and a market for exports; one of Israel’s dirty secrets is how dependent it has always been on foreign allies, going back beyond the Czech arms in 1948. If Bush were serious about trying to get the IDF to tone down its activities, even Sharon would not be able to say no.
I also disagree with your positions on Hamas and the Israeli working class (though I am more sympathetic), but I have written enough, so I will confine myself to saying that I think these are again based on only a shallow understanding of the political and economic situation in the area.
Rafael Greenblatt
Oakland, California
I despise you
Innocent Israelis are actually being murdered by Palestinian monsters. That’s actually fact. Totally innocent, non-combatant, citizens of a free, democratic country are being murdered wantonly by fanatic, islamic nuts. Guided by a morally bankrupt religion, these monsters believe they gain paradise with their crimes.
The leader of these monsters, Yasser Arafat, an unrepentant terrorist, rejected the very proposal you call for, at Camp David. Knowing that accepting your two-state proposal would remove any excuse for continued violence, he rejected it so that he might maintain his violent opposition, as well as his dictatorial powers and opulent lifestyle.
His oft-repeated objective, Palestine from the river to the sea (where would that leave democratic, free Israel again?) is completely incompatible with peace. Yet he continues to manipulate a ‘peace’ process to his own, evil, destructive ends.
In short, the Weekly Worker is horrible, evil, misrepresentative, and completely unwelcome. I despise you and all your ilk. You are pathetic, spineless, evil and weak. Thank god for the free, democratic countries of the world, who have defeated communism for the last century.
God bless America! Not perfect, but as close as it gets on earth!
Jesse Wiseman
email
SWP crap
Richard Morse was right to be dismayed that three members of the editorial board of Welsh Socialist Voice had severed links with the publication (Letters, May 16). Unfortunately, Richard was wide of the mark when he tried to blame this state of affairs on my “inaccurate” journalism (Weekly Worker May 9).
The action of the three - one a member of the Socialist Party, another from Cymru Goch and the third a non-aligned member - lay solely with the behaviour of the Socialist Workers Party, of which Richard is a member.
In fact, Richard has belatedly come to recognise this fact himself. At a national council meeting of the Welsh Socialist Alliance in Swansea on May 19, Richard found himself aligned with independents and the CPGB in defending WSV against criticism of our newspaper from the SWP.
One leading SWPer, in explaining why he was unable to support a CPGB motion which extended support for WSV, went so far as to describe the publication as “crap”. Is it any wonder that the now former editors took exception to the arrogance of the SWP?
That the majority of SWP members present chose to support my motion can be explained on two grounds. Firstly, they did not want to be seen opposing WSV in public. Secondly, even had they opposed it, the decision would have gone against them because of the WSA’s peculiar voting system - no single organisation may wield more than 40% of the vote. No doubt Richard would have faced the grim prospect of having to resign from the SWP at a national council meeting for the second time in five months. That indeed would have been careless.
I accept with good grace Richard’s remark to me that his letter last week was “over the top”. To paraphrase the New Testament, there is more joy in the kingdom of heaven at a sinner who repents ...
Cameron Richards
Gwent WSA
