> >If a two-state solution based on 1967 borders - roughly what was being
> >negotiated in the Peace Process - is not the settlement to be negotiated,
> >what does Yoshie and Jim see as the proper goal?
> >
> >-- Nathan Newman
>
> I'm not a Trotsky trying to direct the Fourth International from
> Columbus, Ohio (!). In the After the Autumn of the Patriarch series
> of posts, I'm trying to offer an analysis of the current conjuncture,
> not just of the Peace Process.(Yoshie)
-I think Yoshie's point can be underlined. The question is not what is the -proper solution for the Paletinians to pursue -- that is their decision. The -question is what is the proper policy for progressives in the imperialist -center to pursue -- and the answer to that question is not complex but simple: -unceasing and total support for the Palestinian struggle, unceasing and total -opposition to racist and potentially genocidal Zionism.
The whole analyze-the-process-but-don't-describe-the-goal line of socialist analysis has been one of the worst tendencies of the 20th century Left, since it ends up privileging horrendous means with no measurement of their value against the potential gains and goals.
As for racism, to adopt a line of privileging only the decisions and viewpoints of the Palestinians, without regard to the decisions and viewpoints of Jews or others in the region is as racist and "potentially genocidal" as Israeli policy. The tendency of almost all analysts of the Middle East to declare only one peoples' perspective and aspirations as legititmate is exactly the basis of racist murder that has created rhythms of retaliation and oppression.
The inconvenient facts for those trying to structure their politics around a subordination of analysis to the Palestinian line is, even if you think Ashkenazi Jews should be driven into the sea as imperialist settlers, the existence of Mizzrachi Jews expelled from Arab countries, Bedouin, assorted African and Asian immigrants (now over 10% of Israel's population), and a range of other peoples in the region who have their own claims in any settlement at this point in history. Secular Palestinians have very different aspirations from Islamic-based Hamas activists for the final structure of any Palestinian state. And so on.
The point of some analysis of what a just settlement would look like is not to impose it on the region (since that is not even possible) but that it is part of any real analysis of the legitimate aspirations of the multiple peoples with a stake in the outcome.
-- Nathan Newman
Carrol