I’m away for two weeks and will have pretty limited Internet access. The moderation policy will stay in force which means that it could be a while before comments from new contributors are released. You know it makes sense.
Auf wiedersehen
I’m away for two weeks and will have pretty limited Internet access. The moderation policy will stay in force which means that it could be a while before comments from new contributors are released. You know it makes sense. Tschüss!
1–2 minutes
47 responses to “Auf wiedersehen”
-
Have you made your feline comrades redundant..? If so, they need union representation…
LikeLike
-
They’re not redundant, just surpuss to requirements.
LikeLike
-
they’ve been cat-apulted into safe seats?
LikeLike
-
It’s a pity that Liam is absent as I’d be interested in his take on recent events in Italy and in particular the PRC Congress.
Essentially, the right wing of Rifondazione, who wanted to liquidate the party into something along the lines of the “rainbow left” coalition they assembled for their disastrous last electoral outing, were defeated. Bertinotti and his anointed heir Vendola were defeated by a new majority led by Ferrero and consisting essentially of the left wing of the old Bertinotti faction plus all of the left opposition currents.
The new majority is deeply divided on a range of issues, but has agreed what it describes as a “new left turn” and is opposed to entering national coalition government with the PD.
This seems to bolster the arguments made by Lotta (the small CWI group) and the larger Controcorrente (one of the remnants of the Progetto Comunista) that the splits by major left factions like the PCL and Sinistra Critica were premature and mistaken because there was still a battle to be fought inside the PRC. The criticisms of the PRC leadership made by the PCL and SC were entirely justified but tactically their splits now look counterproductive. They didn’t bring major forces with them but they did weaken the hard left element within the PRC, ensuring that the softer left of the party leads the new majority rather than the hard left.
It is difficult to imagine the rather rigid and doctrinaire PCL changing course (the PCL got the biggest vote of the groups to the left of Rifondazione in the recent elections). The SC, to their credit, are more flexible but it seems to me that they have burned too many bridges and expended too much political capital on their independent project to turn around and rejoin the PRC now. This is unfortunate because, while I have serious disagreements with both groups, they could play an important role in the PRC left.
LikeLike
-
Bon voyage!
LikeLike
-
But Mark what should SC have done when its parliamentary reps were expelled from the PRC for taking an anti-war stance in public?
LikeLike
-
And the senatorial candidate Marco Ferrando (now a leader of the PCL) was sacked for his elementary defense of oppressed nations against imperialism. The PRC voted over twenty times to support the neo-liberal government including its war in Afghanistan. The PRC leadership has only itself to blame. I can’t imagine the PRC being able to rebuild anything credible after the debacle.
LikeLike
-
I think that you are both missing the point somewhat. I completely agree with you about the role of the PRC leadership, the appalling things they pushed as part of the Prodi coalition and for that matter the action taken against Turrigliatti and, slightly earlier, against Ferrando. That these things are wrong, damaging and unprincipled is not at issue.
The issue was how to deal with the problems posed by the rightward shift of the PRC under Bertinotti. Sinistra Critica (and its dominant part, the Association Bandiera Rossa) did not just walk out immediately when the PRC started doing unprincipled things. In fact their parliamentary reps themselves actually voted for the Afghanistan war credits at an earlier point.
The PCL marched earlier than SC, but both marched without any real extended fight, prematurely and without taking any significant swathe of the PRC rank and file with them. Other left groupings within the PRC argued that there was still a battle to be waged within the PRC against the Bertinotti faction, and that the rank and file could be won over to a change of direction. The PCL and SC disagreed. It now appears that the other left currents were correct on this issue – even without the PCL and SC and those they took with them, the PRC rank and file did indeed dump Bertinotti and Vendola and decide on a new left turn.
That left turn would be stronger and better able to stand up to the inevitable pressures if the PCL and SC activists were still there. Instead they are outside trying to build separate groups with a fraction of the membership numbers and less than a half a percent of the vote. I’m not accusing them of doing something particularly unprincipled here. The problem is that they made what seems to have been a serious tactical error. But tactical errors can have major consequences.
LikeLike
-
Just in case people are interested the full timetable for the Convention of the Left in Manchester this September is now available online at http://www.conventionoftheleft.org . You can read it online or download the brochure as a pdf file.
LikeLike
-
I am slightly bemused at the pre-conference goings on over at SU blog (have we been invited? if not, why not? a similar stuff, etc), all a bit silly really
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2681#comment-85602
LikeLike
-
With the host away things are a bit quiet so something perhaps to warm things up a bit. Has anybody put forward a resolution on the Middle East yet for the Respect conference? I think the following resolution would be good. Would you support it? What changes or additions would you like to see to it and why?
* Lift the vicious siege of Gaza and the West Bank; Jewish `settlers’ out of the occupied territories; Down with the wall; return all stolen farm lands;
* Down with Zionism! For the return of the refugees to their home land with compensation enough to establish a decent existence. This is no bargaining chip but a fundamental and undefeatable demand the realisation of which will mark the defeat of Zionism;
* Israel is an imperialist client state and in no way represents the expression of Jewish national identity if such a thing exists: down with the fraudulent `two-state’ apartheid-style solution.
* For a united secular Palestinian and Jewish state;
* Imperialism out of the Middle East!LikeLike
-
I suppose such motions demonstrate why the British Left is so?
“the expression of Jewish national identity if such a thing exists”
then on the next line
“For a united secular Palestinian and Jewish state;”
not terribly logical, to deny something, then in the next statement argue for it (or at least partially)!
LikeLike
-
The second one however is a secular state. I don’t see how a religion can have a national expression. Perhaps the line should be for a united secular Palestinian and Israeli state? But I think your objection is not to the illogicality but to the logic.
LikeLike
-
ops, so small
LikeLike
-
I don’t understand your last comment but from the previous one I take it you are not part of the `British left’.
Clearly two-states is a non-starter and a trap for the Palestinians so if you don’t agree with the thrust of the resolution what do you propose instead?
LikeLike
-
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/The-mega-prison-of-Palestine
Here’s a link to a good article on current Israeli thinking. And here’s another one:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/01/10014/
LikeLike
-
“I don’t understand your last comment”
obviously
try not to tell Jews, and Jews only, what they can or can’t do
that’ll be a starter in understanding part of these issues
LikeLike
-
Where am I telling Jews what to do? You are being a bit obtuse.
LikeLike
-
“You are being a bit obtuse”
not really, but as you’ve failed to understand the implications of your own motion, even after I highlighted the dodgy bits, then I’d hardly expect you to see this point either, I’d prefer not to litter Liam’s comments boxes too much 🙂
if you drop a comment on my blog I will expand my point.
LikeLike
-
A people who express their self determination through ethnic-cleansing, state racism and discrimination against Palestinians, and who maintain their state only by the military domination and the occupation of surrounding states (courtesy of US imperialism), forfeit their right to “national self determination”.
Socialists cannot support a national self-determination that is based on the oppression of another nationality. A jewish national identity certainly exists in Palestine, it is just being exercised in a reactionary fashion – just as the Boer national identity was exercised in a reactionary fashion in South Africa. The solution is the same, dismantle the zionist state, and re-unite Palestine on a secular, democratic and socialist basis – forward to a united, workers republic of Palestine!
LikeLike
-
strange, how some people would compel Jews to live in a secular state, even if its against their wishes?
and those self same people would not necessarily want to
implement the French model of secularism anywhere else?so force secularism on Jews is ok? but no one else?
Hmm, nice contradiction
LikeLike
-
Western supporters of Israel make such a great play of it being secular. The aspect they venerate is its parliamentary democracy. Hmm, nice contradiction.
LikeLike
-
For once Modernity has a point
:o)
It is not only illogical but politically naive to deny the fact of Jewish national identity when millions of Jews feel that they do have a national identity.
A recognition of the equality of rights to national identity between those who self identity as Jews and those who self identify as palestinians, and an acknowledgment that after all these years their mutual destinies are both bound up with the same bit of land is a precondition for any solution.
Personally i think that this would have to be a single multinational state with guarantees for both Jewish and palestinian peoples- (see the model proposed by Ottoe bauer of a multinational state)
But the real problem is this:
“For the return of the refugees to their home land with compensation enough to establish a decent existence. This is no bargaining chip but a fundamental and undefeatable demand the realisation of which will mark the defeat of Zionism;”
After fifty years?
Firstly, it is entirely up to the Palestinians whether they use this as a barganing chip or not.
But just as importantly, the mass expulsion of Jewish settlers from the lands of 1948 is not seriously demanded by any Palestinian political force, except as rhetoric, because it would make a political settlement impossible, even were it actually desirable on those terms.
I think David has no idea what an Armageddon like war would be implied by such a demand – that would in fact mean the mutual annihiliation of both the Jewish and palestiinian peoples.
LikeLike
-
Democracy depends on secularism. If you have to believe something in order to be considered a citizen then it is not democracy. It is the jews who are being put upon by the Zionists who insist that full citizenship can only be granted to those with certain beliefs.
The contradiction is with you Modernity who seems singularly misnamed.
LikeLike
-
Andy,
That is very dishonest of you. I did not say anything about the mass expulsion of Jewiish settlers from the lands of 1948. Clearly I said from the occupied territories i.e. Gaza, West Bank. I expected better from you I must admit.
The right to return is non-negotiable but it is optional as to whether the refugees take it up.
LikeLike
-
And if the regugees are to return it would be no good them living in cardboard boxes on the streets. They must be compensated with decent housing and jobs.
LikeLike
-
thanks Andy, also appreciate your comments 🙂
Perhaps you’ll have the patience to explain to one of your ex-Renewal comrades (Dave Ellis) how to word a motion?
You might want to point out to him that you don’t have a sentence which condemns something, then in the next clause deny that it exists.
I appreciate that he won’t understand it but that’s just elementary reasoning, as anyone familiar with drawing up trade union motions could tell him.
I have highlighted the logical inconsistency here:
“Israel … in no way represents the expression of Jewish national identity if such a thing exists”
IF?
LikeLike
-
ops, that should Respect, Renewal !
LikeLike
-
David Ellis wants a united and secular states,but apparently wants Jewish settlers out of a part of it.
How does that work David?LikeLike
-
sorry, state.
LikeLike
-
David
I am sorry there is no “dishonesty” on my part, your proposed motion reads:
“* Down with Zionism! For the return of the refugees to their home land with compensation enough to establish a decent existence. This is no bargaining chip but a fundamental and undefeatable demand the realisation of which will mark the defeat of Zionism;
There is no limitation within that to the territories occupied in 1967, nor would it make any sense to do so, because the illegal settlements in East Jerusalam and the West Bank have not – by and large – displaced refugees.
In political terms everyone understands that the issue is the refugees from 1948.
“LikeLike
-
Andy,
Yes, the refugees from 1948 and their decscendents must have the right to return and be compensated with housing, cash and jobs. Why you insist that this is some kind of armageddon demand is beyond me.
Jim Johnson, the settlers in the occupied territories have stolen farm land and property from the Palestinians. They must return it and leave the occupied territories. I’m sure they would be welcome to return as ordinary workers rather than thieving land grabbers.
Modernity, the only contradiction is you calling youself that whilst actually being a medievalist.
LikeLike
-
David
People cannot return to the houses and land that their familes (and in a very few cases they themselves) left in 1948.
That could only be achieved by displacing the current Jewish inhabitants – which is why it is an Arnageddon demand. I don’t think you understand the scale of the numbers involved.
Nor do you understand the scale of the mutual hatred, when you say “I’m sure they would be welcome to return as ordinary workers rather than thieving land grabbers.”
The whole point of the settlements is not just that they steal little bits of land, but they subordinate the whole West bank to Israel, for example there are huge towns of settlers that are linked by settler only roads to Israel proper, and occupy the hill tops surrounding the palestinian towns. the East – West axis of development totally disrupts the natural north-south axis of the palestinian economy; and the annexation of east Jerusalam make the Palestinian authority non-viable anyway.
The scale of it is extraordinary.
Even settler withdrawal from the West bank would be a huge defeat for Israel, that is hard to see happening anytime soon. And that would mean absorbing 500000 people back into Israel.
So saying that return of the refugees to the 1948 lands on top of that is non-negotiable (not a demand any palestinians make BTW) seems a bit grandstanding to me.
Especialy as there is a tradtition in Arab [olitics of huge rhetorical promises from leaders, that mean no action at all. much better are some achieveable steps towards progress that people can be held accountable for delivering.
LikeLike
-
David Ellis,
I appreciate that this is one of your pet obsessions but I would have thought that over the past 6 months you’d be able to re-word that motion to avoid the starkest contradictions
you’ve been banging on about it for the last 6 months, as the SU thread shows “Israel Shamir – The ‘Unique & Advanced Thinker’ Behind Gilad Atzmon” http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1773
you can write whatever you’d like, but the motion (even if you accept all of its premises) reads rather strangely, poorly worded, eg.
“This is no bargaining chip but a fundamental and undefeatable demand the realisation of which will mark the defeat of Zionism;”
“…undefeatable demand the realisation of which will mark…”
sounds like a Spart on acid using 19th century German, translated via Russian, for eventual publication in English
LikeLike
-
But you have to ask if you are going to refuse the right of Palestinians to return how are you going to implement that decision? Perhaps build another wall?
LikeLike
-
Bill
That is a really silly remark. The palestiniansd could return now if there wasn’t the heavily armed state if Israel sitting on that land.
If there is going to be a settlement that doesn’t involve thosands of peoples on both sides being killed then there will need to be a process of negotiation and conflict resolution.
the problem with David Ellis approach is that he makes a principle out of saying that the right of return is non-negotiable. Which is something no palestinian says.
What is non-negotiable in the eyes of palestinians is the status of East Jerusalam, so why david Eliis seeks to impose his own “non-negotiable” vies on the Palestinains is a mysetery to me.
Surely our job is to support them, not to tell them what to do?
LikeLike
-
No our job is to write meaningless, poorly written motions that make people in the West feel good, but do nothing for real people .*
which is rather typical of the English Left.
—-
* that’s sarcasmLikeLike
-
Andy,
Clearly you are deliberately mis-understanding what I am writing for whatever reason. I have said the refugees should be compensated with houses and jobs i.e. new houses and jobs.
Modernity: you are not of the British Left and are clearly a zionist on the other side of the debate so don’t expect anything you say to be taken seriously by anyone except idiots.
Without conceding the right to return then Zionism will remain a potent, colonialist, imperialist force in the region. Do you expect the refugees to remain refugees for ever Bill J? If not, tell us what you have in mind for them.
LikeLike
-
“so don’t expect anything you say to be taken seriously by anyone except idiots.”
So I’ll have your full attention? that’s gratifying
LikeLike
-
Modernity: clearly you are a Zionist so all your comments should be read in that light. You are not participating in this discussion you are merely here to disrupt it.
LikeLike
-
What I have in mind for the refugees is to allow them to return. That’s why I don’t think building a wall is such a good idea. Any “solution” that believes the answer is two states, which separates Jews from Palestinians is racist and will not work.
In fact from my understanding all Palestinian organisations, even the ones who agree two states, maintain their demand for the right to return. There is a growing body of opinion amongst the Palestinians that owing to the Banthustans established by Israel, one state is in any case the only solution and a much more powerful struggle. As has been indeed conceded by Erhut Olmert himself, who said the abandonment of the two state solution by the Palestinians would mean the end of Israel.LikeLike
-
“clearly you are a Zionist so all your comments should be read in that light. You are not participating in this discussion you are merely here to disrupt it.
Ellis,
there’s no discussion here, you put forward a poorly worded motion with gaping holes in it, as you did 6 months ago
I merely pointed out the holes, I wouldn’t expect you to have the wits to understand that, as you seem to have “Jews on the brain” syndrome and think that calling someone a “Zionist”, as an insult, is somehow smart?
Still, if you keep this conduct up you won’t be on the Left for long, the Extreme Right is full of cranks who mutter on about “Zionists” for months on end, I am sure you’ll be very happy in that company, as they can’t write either.
LikeLike
-
There is nothing wrong with the wording of the motion Modernity you are simply trying your best to oppose it and therefore are duty bound as a supporter of colonialism to try to trash it. Funnily enough I think the last time I mentioned Israel was six months ago. Hardly obsessed unlike you who wade in on the side of Zionism at every opportunity.
Bill J: Well put. So what’s your objection again?
LikeLike
-
objection? To what?
LikeLike
-
Well this is bizarre.
I also support a single state solution, as two states is unworkable. But it cannot be achieved without safeguards for the interests of both the palestinian and Jewish peoples. I would like to see Israel dismanted.
yes – all Palestinain oragnisations support the right for return, but none of them to my knowlwedge say this is non negotiable , which David insists upon, and which is what this argument is about.
I am not deliberastely misunderstading you david, just not understanding you, or where I do understand you, only partially agreeing with you, and partially disagreeing with you.
The right to return is seen as a bargaining chip by almost everyone.
You are seeking to impose a formula from outside on a complex situation. Indeed there is very little debate among palestians now about two states or one state, both are seen as utopian in the current circumstances.
the cutting edge is ending the siege of gaza, ending the settlements in the West bank, and allowing palestinians to control their own borders.
LikeLike
-
Andy Newman, isn’t it a contradiction to say that you “support a single state solution as two states is unworkable”
yet also that “the cutting edge is ending the siege of gaza, ending the settlements in the west bank, and allowing palestinians to control their own borders” – surely this latter is the “two states solution” that Israel seems to be working towards with a few changes?!
..and what are “their own borders” (the palestinians)? all the (often changing) ‘lines on the map’ are drawn by Israel…LikeLike
-
Steve
What on earth makes you think that israel is working towards a two states solution?
How does annexation of East Jerusalem, the apertheid wall and disarticulation of the West bank into economically non-sustainable enclaves and the arrest of several Palestinain Authority government ministers suggest that they are working towards twin states?
The practial demands of removing the settlements and allowing palestine to control the Allenby Bridge and its own air space are issues that Israel absolutely will not accept, and even less so will it accept withdrawl from East Jerusalem.
I think you underestmate the degree to which these issues would be a fundamental defeat for Zionism, and as such are a pre-requisite for any solution.
LikeLike
Liam redux 
Leave a reply to andyinswindon Cancel reply