Last night I debated Sean Matgamna of the Alliance for Workers Liberty at a central London pub in front of an audience of about 30 people. My notes for the debate follow.
The main point:
Israel is facing an existential threat and it is the responsibility of socialists to defend the Jewish state.
Where we agree
Usually in these sort of debates you dive right into to what you disagree on. I believe it is equally important to see what, if anything, you do agree on.
Support a 2-state solution Oppose the occupation Feel concern about rising anti-Semitism and Islamophobia Oppose religious fundamentalism including Islamic fundamentalism Recognize that the Syrian and Iranian regimes are in no sense progressive but are in fact fascist or quasi-fascist states Sympathize with Israel's peace camp Sympathize with the "cedar revolution" in Lebanon Support the working class and the growth of trade unions in the entire Middle East
Even though we disagree about this war, we do agree on a great deal.
And I have been fighting for these things my whole adult life, particularly during the 18 years that I lived in Israel and fought against the Israeli Right and the settler movement.
Because I agree with you on these points, I take the view I do on the war. And I think that if you do share these views with me, you are taking the wrong line on this war.
Where we disagree
Here's what you have been saying:
Your slogan - "Stop the Israeli assault on Gaza and Lebanon!"
(title of the main article on your website)
And again -- "End the attacks on Gaza and Lebanon! No reoccupation of southern Lebanon! For a free and independent Palestinian state alongside Israel!"
And your analysis -
"Once again the Israeli government responded with a hugely disproportionate assault on Lebanon, with large and predictable civilian casualties among the Lebanese population in general."
"Syria and Iran bang the drums in support of Hezbollah and expose themselves as the regional imperialists they are. But the decisive power here to destroy, or to keep alive, possibilities of peace, lies with the Israeli government."
As if Hezbollah and Hamas do not exist – as if socialists should not at the very least be calling on them to cease their attacks against Israeli civilian population centres!
But you do not make this call. You focus on "Israeli attacks" and an "Israeli assault" -- as if Israel was the aggressor, which it is not.
You are not telling the truth.
The question facing socialists
The question is – do we socialists support or oppose Israel in its war of self defense following the Hamas and Hizbollah attacks?
There is no third way and no third camp. We could call for a "socialist federation of the Middle East" or for the workers of Israel, Palestine and Lebanon to overthrow their bosses and embrace each other as brothers and sisters. But if that were to be our position (and not just our dream) we would be living in a fantasy.
If you support Israel's right of self-defense as a socialist you offer that support critically, meaning that you support:
* limited war aims (putting Hizbollah and Hamas rockets out of range of Israeli civilians) *a diplomatic solution to the conflict
And you oppose:
* unnecessary civilian deaths (noting the difference between deliberately targetting civilians and collateral damage) * the re-occupation of Lebanon or Gaza by Israeli forces
What this means in practice is that while you might support a limited series of military actions by Israel today, were Israel to re-occupy Lebanon and Gaza, or deliberately target civilians as part of its strategy, or reject any possibility of a diplomatic solution – if Israel were to do any of those things, you could change your mind tomorrow.
And this is exactly what happened to the Israeli Left in 1982: initially the Labour Party supported the invasion, and within weeks – when it became clear what Begin and Sharon were up to – changed their views.
An historic parallel
In situations like these, we always look for historical parallels. On a recent talk show on Radio 4, the Israeli army was compared to Hitler's Wehrmacht by a panel of pundits, to the applause of the audience.
A different historical metaphor might be the Spanish civil war, the 70th anniversary of which we are remembering this summer. It has been suggested as a model for the current fighting in the Middle East by Ephraim Sneh, a leader of the Israeli Labour Party and the son of the legendary Israeli Communist Moshe Sneh.
Clearly the use of proxy forces (in this case, Hizbollah and Hamas, back then, the mutinous officers of the Spanish army) directed by fascist states (Italy and Germany then, Iran and Syria now) is one parallel.
And there is another: today, most of you are appalled at the idea that we would be on the same side of a conflict as George Bush. But in 1936-39, if you backed the Spanish Republicans because you believed in democracy and freedom, you found yourself in the same camp as Stalin – at the peak of the Stalinist terror.
I think that socialists were right to support the Spanish Republic in its struggle for survival. And today we should support the Israeli Republic for the same reasons.
The analogy works for other reasons as well. In the Spanish Civil War, as in every war, both sides did terrible things. Many civilians were killed. Innocent blood was shed – and not only by the fascists.
Socialists did not take the view then – a plague on both your houses, victory for the third camp, etc. Socialists supported the Spanish Republic as if there was no Stalin – and opposed Stalin as if there was no civil war in Spain.
The Spanish civil war is now seen by many as a dress rehearsal for the second world war. Clearly the Germans and Italians saw it that way, and tested out their dive bombers and blitzkrieg tactics against Madrid and Guernica. Some analysts see the fight in Lebanon and Gaza today the same way – they see Islamic reactionary regimes like Iran launching a proxy war not only against Israel, but against the US, against Britain, and against the West.
I'm not sure I would push the metaphor that far. I prefer to stay with this central idea: when a democratic republic is battling for survival against the black forces of fascist reaction, socialists are tested.
Has the AWL lost its way?
If you oppose Israel in this war, as the AWL does, you have two choices and only two choices:
You can support its enemy, Hizbollah and Hamas, which is the view of the SWP, the Stop the War coalition, and others
Or – you can propose an alternative strategy for the Jewish state and its working class
If the latter, what is your strategy for Israel to survive as an independent state? What would you tell our comrade Amir Peretz to do?
I believe that you do not have an alternative strategy, and that what you are doing is talking out of both sides of your mouth, trying not to burn bridges with the various organizations like the SWP with which you have tried repeatedly to form coalitions in the past (remember the ill-fated Socialist Alliance?)
You have your principles – you support the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their own land – but you are afraid to become even more unpopular by defending that principle in the real world.
What is on the table here is an existential threat to the Jewish state, one which is recognized by the overwhelming majority of Israelis (including the peace movement) and by Jews everywhere, including here in Britain.
That existential threat comes from Iran and Syria, two states run by brutal regimes which have killed tens of thousands of their own citizens and which are both committed to the destruction of Israel. You know this. You have talked about this and written about it.
Both states have weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them (long range missiles), both have had nuclear arms programs – though Iran's is far more advanced – and both have been waging war against Israel for decades using proxy armies (terrorist groups). You know this too.
But you choose to ignore what you know, and you refuse to act upon your principles. The Jewish state faces the threat of annihilation by Islamo-fascist organizations that have sworn to do exactly that. But you act as if this is not happening – and you call upon Israel, and only Israel, to halt its attacks.
Conclusion
When Serbia launched its genocidal campaign against the Kosovars, the Left was tested. Here in Britain, the AWL played a magnificent role telling the truth – and nearly alone at that. Going so far as to say that surgical strikes by Nato against Serb forces might be justified.
The Left was tested after the fall of the Saddam regime when reactionary, Baathist and Islamist forces attempted to break the back of the emerging Iraqi trade unions. The AWL stood up in defense of the elementary principle of working class solidarity – and found itself alone among the revolutionary Left organizations in doing so.
But when Hizbollah and Hamas launched unprovoked aggression against Israeli, backed by the fascists in Tehran and Damascus, you chose to participate in pro-Hizbollah demonstrations, and to produce a cowardly leaflet denouncing Israel in the headline, not even calling on Hizbollah and Hamas to stop their aggression.
It was not your finest moment, comrades.
Sometimes we take unpopular stands because we have to.
This is a critical moment for the left. We are being tested by events. We must have the courage to say what we truly believe, no matter how unpopular.
We don't pick up new members this way, we don't sell more newspapers this way, we don't make friends to our "left" and we don't build new versions of the Socialist Alliance, but this is something we must do.
Because telling the truth – even when it is unpopular -- is what makes us socialists
-- Michael Pugliese