Source >> Gilbert Achcar blog
The short statement addressed to “leaders of North American Jewry” and signed by many “academics and other public figures from Israel/Palestine and abroad” is certainly a welcome initiative. Asserting that “there cannot be democracy for Jews in Israel as long as Palestinians live under a regime of apartheid”, the statement observes that “American Jews have long been at the forefront of social justice causes, from racial equality to abortion rights, but have paid insufficient attention to the elephant in the room: Israel’s long-standing occupation that, we repeat, has yielded a regime of apartheid.”
The statement therefore calls upon its addressees to:
- Support the Israeli protest movement, yet call on it to embrace equality for Jews and Palestinians within the Green Line and in the OPT.
- Support human rights organizations which defend Palestinians and provide real-time information on the lived reality of occupation and apartheid.
- Commit to overhaul educational norms and curricula for Jewish children and youth in order to provide a more honest appraisal of Israel’s past and present.
- Demand from elected leaders in the United States that they help end the occupation, restrict American military aid from being used in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and end Israeli impunity in the UN and other international organizations.
There are, however, a few problems with the statement in my view. The following critical observations are not meant to be polemical but are intended as a contribution to a necessary dialogue.
1. It is not “Israel’s long-standing occupation” (meaning the occupation that started in 1967) that “has yielded a regime of apartheid”. The “regime of apartheid” is congenital to the State of Israel as it emerged from the 1948 war. It affected the minority of Palestinians who remained within the boundaries of the new state and was most famously described before 1967 by Palestinian lawyer and activist Sabri Jiryis in his book The Arabs in Israel, first published in Hebrew in 1965 and translated into several languages (the 1969 French translation was preceded by a brilliant essay by Eli Lobel, “Les Juifs et la Palestine”).
2. Calling for “equality for Jews and Palestinians within the Green Line and in the OPT” conflates two very different issues. The demand of equality between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel is a perfectly legitimate and necessary democratic demand. The demand for “equality for Jews and Palestinians” in the West Bank implicitly postulates that Jews there, i.e. colonial settlers, have rights and that these rights should be equal to those of the Palestinian original inhabitants. Surely, Jewish settlers have much more license and power than the Palestinian natives in the 1967-occupied Palestinian territories, but they have no “rights” there whatsoever. Postulating otherwise is contradictory with the demand to “end the occupation”.
3. If “elected leaders in the United States” really wish to “help end the occupation”, they must not limit themselves to demanding that American military aid be “restrict[ed] from being used in the Occupied Palestinian Territories”. Israel has certainly enough military means of its own to pursue its occupation. What is needed to stop Israel from running towards the abyss is the threat of a cessation of all and every form of U.S. military aid: Only such a pressure can bring the Israeli polity and society to understand that they cannot carry on occupying Palestinian and other Arab territories and discriminating against Israel’s Palestinian citizens with the support of the world power that has been the main enabler of this behaviour since the 1960s.
Art (52) Book Review (121) Books (114) Capitalism (65) China (79) Climate Emergency (97) Conservative Government (90) Conservative Party (45) COVID-19 (44) Economics (39) EcoSocialism (55) Elections (82) Europe (44) Fascism (56) Film (49) Film Review (68) France (69) Gaza (59) Imperialism (97) Israel (119) Italy (45) Keir Starmer (52) Labour Party (110) Long Read (42) Marxism (47) Palestine (163) pandemic (78) Protest (149) Russia (334) Solidarity (133) Statement (47) Trade Unionism (134) Ukraine (339) United States of America (129) War (362)
The Anti*Capitalist Resistance Editorial Board may not always agree with all of the content we repost but feel it is important to give left voices a platform and develop a space for comradely debate and disagreement.
Latest Posts
- An alternative economic plan… that could be implemented tomorrow!
Labour could choose to make ‘tough choices’ on the rich to fund an expanded public service, writes Jamie Gough - Careless People
Ian Parker reviews a book exposing the internal workings of Facebook - Labour’s neoliberal agenda on financial regulation
Is Starmer repeating the mistakes the led to the 2007 financial crash? Labour seeks to cut regulation to encourage growth, but Ruth MacKenzie and Simon Hannah argue that this is a dangerous approach. - ‘Even silence is viewed as dissent’: An interview with Russian trade unionist Pavel Kudyukin
Pavel Kudyukin is co-chair of the University Solidarity trade union and a member of the Council of the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR). He also served as Russia’ deputy minister of labour (1991-93). In this extensive interview with Federico Fuentes and Serhii Shlyapnikov for LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, Kudyukin talks about the situation of workers and trade unions in Russia and the territories it occupies, and the debate over whether to expel Russian unions from international bodies. Kudyukin also discusses the differing stances among Russian leftists towards Russia’s war on Ukraine, and the campaigns to free political prisoners held in Russian jails. - Downright Nasty and Dangerous Reforms from the Labour Party
On Tuesday 18 March, the government announced its well -trailed attacks on disabled people. If they hoped that the fact they dropped the suggestion of freezing PIP levels would placate disabled campaigners they were very mistaken. Gail Ward looks at the main elements of the Green Paper.