imageSensible souls made the most of the early autumn sunshine on Sunday. Others went along to an exchange of views between the Alliance For Workers Liberty’s Sean Matgamna and respected anti Zionist Moshé Machover. Here’s a pretty biased account of what happened which goes some way towards explaining why the far left is regarded as a bit of a freak show. A very rigorous interpretation of the comments policy will be enforced for this post.

The “debate”, which lasted the worst part of four hours, was a waste of time. In the course of the evening, Moshé was repeatedly denounced by AWL members for “Stalinism”, “imperialist economism”, “demonising Israel and Zionism”, “being in bed with political antisemitism” , “smirking” and “not knowing the history of the conflict”.. This about a man who was one of the founders of Matzpen; who was expelled from the Israeli Communist Party in 1961 for criticising the party’s slavish submission to the Soviet line and for demanding internal party democracy; who wrote the classic text The Class Nature of Israeli Society. To describe him as a  Stalinist ignorant of the history of the conflict is so grossly offensive an insult that  it alone discredits anything else his critics said.

Although the title was “Israel, Iran and the left”, and was sparked by Matgamna’s article effectively calling for an Israeli nuclear strike against
Iran, in his opening half-hour speech Matgamna did not even mention the word Iran, instead devoting his time to attacking a pastiche anti-Zionist position which he ascribed to the rest of what he calls the “kitsch left”.

Moshé described this as “Verbiage you would expect to hear from Melanie Phillips, not from a socialist”, while from the floor later Ilana Machover
commented that an Israeli would be ashamed to offer such an analysis, and that if they brought a speaker from the Israeli embassy we would have heard the same position presented with greater sophistication.

After the opening speeches, AWL members tried to argue that comments should only be accepted from members of the AWL and the CPGB, since this, they claimed, was a debate between the two groups. They then denounced the CPGB for not debating with them, but rather “hiding behind” Moshé, who of course is not a CPGB member. The AWL’s ridiculous demand was rejected; after this, their members proceeded to heckle and shout down all anti-Zionist speakers, including Moshé. Although some CPGB speakers also heckled, they were on the whole, better behaved. They also, for the most part, discussed the issue; much of the AWL’s contribution consisted of attacks on the CPGB for refusing to debate them, for lying about them, and for threatening to “drive them out of the labour movement”.

The discussion achieved little, since AWL speakers persist in denouncing positions which they would like their opponents to hold, not with what they
actually say. As usual in discussions with them, every Jewish speaker presented an anti-Zionist position; which did not stop the AWL from attacking anti-Zionism, and even opposition to two states, as “antisemitic” , since it appears that in their view all Jews do, or should, support Israel. Moshé correctly noted that this was the real antisemitic position.

81 responses to “A mass debate”

  1. Well done to Moshe. The AWL are deep into rabid, swivel-eyed, petty bourgeois mode and the SWP are indistinguishable from the Khmer Rouge or even Kelvin Mckenzie and the bankers who wanted to drive the stock exchange down to 3000 overnight by withholding credit.

    The sects are imploding which augers well for the Respect conference. I think by taking a serious attitude to the banking crisis Respect built up some credit with those people considering whether to join or not.

    As for the debate: four hours?!!?

    By the by Israel is capping the numbers of Ethiopian jews allowed into the country which just about renders it a busted flush. With Israel’s ideological raison d’etre now gone Zionism cannot last much longer.

    Jewish workers and Palestinians unite for a secular democratic state.

    Like

  2. ” the SWP are indistinguishable from the Khmer Rouge ”
    Really . Does John Rees have a million skulls piled up in his front room? Do you want to withdraw this, or would you like it quoted back to you every time you accuse someone else of sectarianism?

    “The sects are imploding which augers well for the Respect conference. I think by taking a serious attitude to the banking crisis Respect built up some credit with those people considering whether to join or not.”

    Of course if there was any life in your rump you would be talking about those people who’d actually joined rather than hypothesising about people considering whether to join or not. In reality the movement is going to be in the other direction. Respect, when it was a Unity Coalition, won a seat in Tower Hamlets on the back of a huge anti-war mood. At the next election you are unlikely to come close to winning any of your five target seats, and anyone interested in mostly electoral politics of the left won’t touch with a bargepole what has become a vanity project.
    And I thought half the sects are going to be at the “Respect Conference”. Or as they’d call it in football, the “F£$@ing Respect” Conference. Oh, they’re not sects when they agree with you. My mistake.

    Like

  3. I think david means that the position argued by SW members on the blogs was tothat they were opposed to the banks being stabilised even if this meant crashing the economy.

    Hence a reference to the Khmer Rouge.

    i don’t think david literally means that the SWP are the Khmer Rouge.

    Like

  4. Just brilliant that a wonderful opportunity to revel in the sectarian hoo-ha between the AWL and CPGB can so quickly turn into the sectarian hoo-ha between the SWP and Respect.

    Like

  5. In a way well done to Moshe, but what was the point of this farago? The AWL have a pro-apartheid position on Israel, they are for segregation and Jim Crow. They play a shameful role on the British Left.
    But what about the CPGB? Certainly they are not rabid like the AWL, but paradoxically they two have a segregationist two state position – albeit one which calls for a “secular Jewish state”, an oxymoron if ever there was one.
    Part of their obsession with the AWL is I think because they paradoxically have so much in common. Not only almost the same position on Israel, but an extremely passive propagandist split the difference method, which attempts to pretend that it doesn’t really matter if you are for or against two states, that you can still be in the same party – provided you call yourself a….Marxist.
    Funny sort of Marxism, which exists neither to understand the world or to change it.

    Like

  6. David Rosenberg Avatar
    David Rosenberg

    So it seems that the latest Zionist idea for defending the indefensible is to invite anti-zionists to a room and abuse them for four hours in the most peurile manner. Do you think this is a strategy or a tactic?

    Like

  7. Unsurprising their banality and their maddness.

    Though in a convoluted way I have to thank the precuser of the AWL, Socialist Organiser ( or Zionist Organgrinder as they were referred to in 1980s student politics world). It was them that drove me to do my dissertation on Zionism while studying at the hallowed portals of Manchester Poly. I mean you could have a serious and rationale debate with members of UJS, but members of SO impossible to debate with. but they forced me to read and research. It wasn’t just because they were abusive

    I witnessesed their attempts to get the better of a one Mr Tony Cliff on the same matter at a NUS conference fringe meeting some time in 88 or 89 ( someone out there will remember). His reply was a master class in brevity and succinctness. Dismissed with a wave of his hand and one of his wonderful pithy metaphors

    One wonders why poor Moshe tolerated this nonsense for four hours let alone 4 minutes.

    Clearly this bunch are a few Ferrero Rochers short of a full Ambassedor reception.

    Like

  8. Bill,

    where does your “secular Jewish state” quote relating to the CPGB’s position come from? As a member I have never come across this before. I did a search for it on the CPGB website and it says: “Your search – “secular jewish state” – did not match any documents.”

    As for the idea that our position is basically the same as that of the AWL… You clearly either don’t understand our position, or simply want to misrepresent it – and this wouldn’t be the first time.

    Dave.

    Like

  9. Did you go to this Liam? Didn’t see you there… not that I went, I just happened to be in the venue when everyone started arriving.

    I was with an Iranian socialist as it happens and when I explained what was about to occur he was quite keen on going until I explained they weren’t actually going to be discussing Iran or anything to do with the Middle East – that wasn’t going to get a look in over the sound of egos and formulations clashing.

    He was quite disappointed – but then again aren’t we all?

    Like

  10. Bill J, funny sort of Marxism that allows free and open debate, along with public differences isn’t it! Thats not the Marxism we want at all is it?

    The CPGB majority position on Israel/ Palestine is something i disagree with, but saying that the CPGB position on Israel is almost identical to the AWL shows a clear lack of ability to read.

    Is the CPGB for the continuing of the Zionist project? No, but the AWL are. Are we for the existance of a Jewish state oppresses minority rights? No, the AWL are. Obviously Bill that means the CPGB and AWL have “almost the same position on Israel” doesn’t it? Peter Manson summed up the majority position on this in 2006:

    “Programmes based on either the current oppression of Palestinian Arabs or the future oppression of Israeli Jews are reactionary. The left’s call for the abolition of the state of Israel and its replacement by a “democratic, secular Palestine” falls into the latter category. The SWP, in order to accommodate its islamist allies, has recently gone one step further and effectively dropped the word ‘secular’ – a theocratic state like Iran wouldn’t be too bad, would it? Disgraceful.

    By contrast, we demand a genuinely democratic solution, whereby both Israeli Jew and Palestinian Arab can enjoy full national rights. In other words a programme based on the establishment of a democratic, secular Palestine alongside a democratic, secular Israel. There can be no democracy without secularism – the complete equality of believer with non-believer.

    Far from such a two-state solution being based on ‘ethnic cleansing’, as our critics ludicrously suggest, it would incorporate the free movement of people, including the right of return of all Palestinians previously driven out of their country by Zionism. The Palestinians must be allowed to set up a viable state in areas where they form the majority – there are, after all, 1.4 million of them in Israel proper. Furthermore there must be full minority rights in both entities.

    Our idea of a two-state solution is far removed from the version still, occasionally and half-heartedly, propounded by Blair, who clearly believes that a helpless bantustan, over which Israel would have the right of veto in virtually every aspect of policy, would suffice. It would not. Not only should a Palestinian state extend beyond the West Bank and Gaza into what is now Israeli territory: it must have full access to water and other essential resources diverted by Israel. There must be a huge programme of reparations to compensate Palestinians for the decades of deprivation.”
    (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/634/lebanon.htm)

    Instead of dealing in caricarures Bill, maybe you should engage with reality. As i wrote above, i am for against this majority position, which is unworkable in my opinion. I am for a one state solution. What Bill is trying to do is put the CPGB with the Zionists when clearly in everything we have written we are against the Zionist project in the middle east.

    Moshe deals with the two state/ one state debate here: http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/articles/moshe%20machover%20%202006lecture_b.pdf

    Like

  11. Jesus Jim!

    No!!!

    I wouldn’t claim that my life is a rollercoaster of thrills but unless someone offered me £10m or i hadn’t seen or spoken to another human being for 30 years I can’t imagine any circumstances in which I would have gone to that.

    Even the writer had a premonition that it would be horrible but hadn’t conceived horror on that scale.

    Like

  12. But I can read Chris. Stop being so patronising.
    A separate Jewish state (secular or otherwise) will enforce the partition of Palestine. It is a racist Jim Crow solution. What difference does it make to the Palestinians if a non-religious Jewish state drives them out of their homes?
    It supports the Zionist project of a separate albeit (non-religious – how is that possible?) Jewish homelans.
    Presumably in your Jewish (non religious) state you will need to be a separate Jewish (secular) police and (secular) immigration services to stop Palestinians occupying Jewish (secular) land. How will you determine who is and who is not Jewish?
    What systems will you establish to enforce this racial segregation?
    OK you claim that you can combine the right to return with a separate state. How?
    If Palestinians are able to return to Israel – then a Jewish state (secular or otherwise) will not exist.
    So at best the CPGB’s position makes no sense. It is incoherent as you concede. At worst it is a racist Jim Crow solution. Separate but equal – the slogan of deep South apartheid.
    You claim that you are against this position – yet you support an organisation which fights for it. Why are you against it if it is such a principled position?
    Does the position of your party not matter to you?
    What is the purpose of a party/organisation if not to fight for its positions?
    If it really doesn’t matter what the position of the party is, as appears to be the case, what is the point of your party?
    As for allowing open debate – open debate for what purpose – to split the difference between racists and anti-racists? No thanks.

    Like

  13. Clearly you never read my post let alone what the CPGB have wrote on the subject. Let me quote what Peter Manson wrote in 2006: “there must be full minority rights in both entities.” So how does the majority position in the CPGB be racist?

    And on how do you decide who and who isn’t Jewish, that is utter nonsense, the CPGB have clearly wrote that it is against any special priveleges for one group over another.

    On the right of return, i agree that the right of return would destroy the state of Israel as it is currently constituted. As the CPGB wrote that full minority rights would be given in both the Israeli and Palestinian state. I actually think that this is unworkable because Israel would remain a modern capitalist state with a massive bureaucratic-military aparatus whilst Palestine is ruined economically and militarily so therfore these two state could never be equal. The way you approach the majority position in the CPGB is to caricature what we have written instead of actually dealing with the problems the two state solution poses. To say that it is racist is also nonsense.

    If you are for a party that is open, has clear debates and behaves democratically then you will have to accept that you may find yourself in a minority. Instead of building a wonderous array of sects that split and split and split. Maybe building a mass party which is open and allows differences inside?

    As whether it matters what the position of the party is and whether members can say that it is wrong is clearly very healthy. You may be content to build up a nice new sect like WP where differences where hidden from public, where agreement must be achieved or dissent silenced. But that is not our project, and is clearly a project that has failed. If we are to achieve unity then openness and honesty over differences are the only way forward.

    Like

  14. The AWL did not debate the ideas, looked totally grim during the meeting and scuttled away after. Alcohol was a determining factor.

    Like

  15. Bill, the point of a political party is not to cohere people around the issues that Bill Jefferies, (SNEERING PERSONAL STUFF DELETED – SEE COMMENTS POLICY – LIAM) has decided arbitrarily are the great dividing lines (apparently particular interpretations of anti-fascism and the relative merits of different numbers of states in mandated Palestine are those thrown up by the immaculate dialectical method, I’m sure). It is to provide an instrument for deciding on the truth, and then acting on the truth. In adhering fetishistically to formulae that ultimately serve only to cohere people around totems, you renege on the ‘truth’ business…let alone acting on it.

    Following your interventions on the internet are extraodinary – you caricature somebody’s position, and when they correct you, claim that they did really say what you want them to say, all the better for you to stitch them up. I particularly liked you on Mike’s book over at the Commune.

    The problem with the CPGB majority position is simply that it makes no sense now and no sense in the future. if only a socialist revolution in the middle east makes a resolution to the Israel-Palestine business possible, and the overthrow of the Israeli state is a necessary condition for that movement’s success, what’s the point of raising two states? That’s what the CPGB majority fails to answer, not any imaginary toss about Jim Crow laws.

    Like

  16. “I think david means”

    Then perhaps he should say rather than actually accusing the SWP of being indistinguishable from mass murderers.
    Am I Pol Pot or Not? The SWP I think Not.

    For the benefit of EE here’s a critique of last night’s TalkShite:
    Someone should tell George that an imaginary example is a hypothetical not a hypothesis.
    Cliff F%@£ing Richard? I turn off other radio stations to avoid him. Suppose They Have A War And Noone Comes by the West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band is easily found on youtube.
    AskKev: why is google much better than you?Both he and his caller were wrong about sub-atomic particles: the photon only travels at the speed of light in a vacuum and the tachyon only travels faster than the speed of light. Here endeth the lesson.

    I noticed there was a post here a while back on Brazil where the contibutors were honest enough to admit they knew f£$k all about the subject. It may interest you to know that Brazil has just had major local elections which were only carried out in many favelas with the aid of military occupation. And there’s an election aboot to happen in Canada.

    Like

  17. It is clearly absurd to describe the CPGB’s position as racist. It really doesn’t help debate when such words are bandied about so freely. The CPGB position is wrong as Chris points out. The idea that the fact he is able to do so negates the point of his organisation is equally absurd. Been there, done that, its called being in a sect.

    Like

  18. critique of the gofer programme

    Like

  19. Jimbo confirms exactly my earlier point – the CPGB wish to brush over the essential difference between one state and two states in Palestine – claiming in essence that it doesn’t really matter.
    Sure he says he disagrees – he points out that it makes no sense now or in the future – but what’s more important is that he doesn’t internet style.
    Some might say that’s showing a flawed sense of priorities.
    So is the CPGB’s position racist? Does it equate to the advocay of Jim Crow? And is absurd to say so?
    Chris says that;
    “As the CPGB wrote that full minority rights would be given in both the Israeli and Palestinian state.”

    But that is clearly untrue.
    The minority – in this instance the Palestinians who will evidently be outnumbered in the Jewish secular state – presumably as there will be population quotas to limit the numbers entering – cannot have the same rights as the majority, or otherwise, the state of Israel – or the secular Jewish state – as the CPGB prefer to call it, would not exist.
    The minority would become the majority if democracy never mind socialism was adhered to.
    The existence of the “Jewish” state is predicated upon discrimination and oppression – its existence is predicated on racist discrimination against Palestinians – there is no other way of stopping it from disappearing. There is no other way of maintaining its existence.
    Jim Crow laws was the system of apartheid discrimination established in the deep South of the USA to prevent whites and blacks sharing facilities. But how else will the Palestinians be prevented from returning to the homeland other than by Jim Crow?
    There is no other way than immigration controls, population quotes, housing tests, education tests, language tests etc.
    How else will they be kept out of the “secular” Jewish state?
    Tina says that that is absurd to describe this position as racist. But how is it absurd to point out that as the existence of a “secular” Jewish state is predicated upon racist oppression – and there really is no other way of enabling it to exist – then that position to is racist.
    It is not absurd. Rather it is accurate and to the point.
    Let’s not forget the CPGB’s position was not immaculately conceived. It did not spring fully formed from the head of whoever it was, it came from….Sean Matgamna.
    During the 1990s, the CPGB had a relatively principled one state position, albeit stagist and Stalinist, but following their flirtation with Matgamna in the 1990s, they adopted the essence of his position on Israel.
    What is the point of a party? It is to fight for a political position – in the case of the CPGB and Israel – and objectively discriminatory and racist one. The fact that they allow a minority to disagree with them doesn’t change anything of substance.
    Call that a great dividing line? I hope so.

    Like

  20. Bill you are talking utter shit, and very offensive shit at that. You’re approach is like the AWL running around calling everyone who disagrees with them on Israel/ Palestine anti Semitic. The approach is identical, no dealing with politics just throw enough abuse in hope that it sticks.

    I have a lot of time for Permanent Revolution, I think on the left that they are one of the more healthy and thinking organisations. If the CPGB are racists why is a good anti racist like yourself working with us? I take it you don’t do anti war work with racists? Yet you work week in week out with members and supporters of the CPGB, so either your not a serious anti racist or we are not racists at all. Which one is it?

    No one from the CPGB is trying to brush over anything on this question, it is something that needs to be clarified within our own ranks and within the wider movement. It is not a debate that is helped by silly accusations of racism.

    How is the CPGB calling for population quotas when very clearly we are for the right of return and the consequences that follow, it is essential that whether it is one states or two that full minority rights are given. The existence of the “Jewish” state is predicated upon discrimination and oppression now, absolutely correct but any democratic settlement would have to come about through the destruction of the Zionist state and the unity of both Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Hebrews. The CPGB is not for the status quo, it is not for the domination of Israel over Palestine, the problem is that if a two state settlement could be achieved then a situation where Israel could still dominate a Palestine which is ruined militarily and economically. So just like the Irish republic was subjected to decades of poverty so would Palestine. It would be dominated by its bigger neighbour, which is clearly not a democratic settlement. I think Moshe Machover in the article I provided earlier in this thread deals with the problems which arose from the one state/ two state debate better than I can here.

    On the question of Jim Crow laws, clearly by calling for the right of return for Palestinian refugees negates any such accusations that we are for apartheid doesn’t it. If the majority are for equal minority rights in both entities, clearly that negates and accusations of racism. No one is calling for Palestinians to be kept out of a secular Israeli Hebrew state from the CPGB are they? The opposite in fact.

    The CPGB’s current majority position was arrived through open discussion, if that process involved discussions with the AWL then so be it. Our positions are something that should be reviewed and clarified through open and sharp debate in our ranks and through discussions with other left wing groups.

    What is the point of a party? To organise and unite the working class to advance our class towards proletarian revolution. It is not just to fight for a position, clearly any party that is actually Marxist would have a multitude of differences within it, and that is healthy, as a multitude of debates clarify and strengthens the politics of the whole party. As opposed to a sect, which is something you know all about with your experience with Workers Power, which hides it differences from the public and stifles debate amongst its members and fights for a line that is dreamt up behind closed doors. I hope you don’t want PR to go down the same road, because that would be a tragedy. Our organisation is proud to show that we have differences, proud to show that we have discussions. How else do you correct wrong lines? If we follow your advice then we wouldn’t be discussing nothing we would be fighting for a line without thinking. That has worked so well for the left so far hasn’t it?

    Like

  21. “If you are for a party that is open, has clear debates and behaves democratically then you will have to accept that you may find yourself in a minority. Instead of building a wonderous array of sects that split and split and split. Maybe building a mass party which is open and allows differences inside? ”

    Clearly. We completely agree on this. However, it is also legitimate- and necessary – to criticise for example a policy that segregates Arabs and Jews against their will.

    We should instead be for the right of return across all historic Palestine with equal rights for Jews, Arabs and others- a position Chris seems to agree with. Fair enough

    But rather than just make this a point about parties and competing groups(in fact after this reasonable sentence Chris comes out with some slur about wanting to buid a sect- which is just silly I think) perhaps we should go beyond this and try to create a movement.

    The idea of a mass party is fine- but it can I suspect only arise from building action- solidarity action against racism, rebuilding rank and file networks in the unions, rebuilding union organisations, working class organisations on the estates and in the localities.

    Like

  22. Chris, for information our posts crossed over. I’ll read your latest offering and respond.

    However, it is perhaps best not to swear.

    Like

  23. OK I’ve read it but it seems to be attacking a straw person-
    “What is the point of a party? To organise and unite the working class to advance our class towards proletarian revolution. It is not just to fight for a position, clearly any party that is actually Marxist would have a multitude of differences within it, and that is healthy, as a multitude of debates clarify and strengthens the politics of the whole party.”

    OK. Fair enough. It more or less says what I said though to be fair.

    As for the CPGB not being racist- again fair enough. Of course they’re not. So? Good. What’s the problem?
    However, as you say a two state soltion imposed on the Palestinians will allow a racist Israeli state the power to exclude.

    “It would be dominated by its bigger neighbour, which is clearly not a democratic settlement. ”

    I think we agree. Can’t see the problem. I however am exhausted- the trails of working eh? But can’t see any great prblem here. I think you misunderstand our position.

    By the way- to Liam the tilte of this thread is ridiculous. And really somewhat offensive- I don;t think it is masturbatory at all to debate e.g. on here about how to build solidarity with the Palestinians. It is actually a life and death matter.

    Like

  24. Yes, swearing was wrong, I apologise to Liam and readers for littering this blog with swearing. I am not happy about being called a racist so that is why I responded as I did.

    The majority CPGB position is not about separating Arabs and Jews against their will, it is about arriving at a democratic and acceptable settlement to both populations. I think what has gone wrong is that the CPGB majority have gone down the road of believing this could be achieved through a two states solution, within a socialist federation.

    “The idea of a mass party is fine- but it can I suspect only arise from building action- solidarity action against racism, rebuilding rank and file networks in the unions, rebuilding union organisations, working class organisations on the estates and in the localities.”

    I agree, but to build up this movement you need a common leadership and a common programme. Building common action is always held back by the very existence of sectarianism, by comrades wanting to further their group than furthering the interests of the working class.

    “As for the CPGB not being racist- again fair enough. Of course they’re not. So? Good. What’s the problem?”

    The problem is Bill accusing of being racists. Which is utter nonsense as you point out as well.

    I have not misunderstood your position, I think we have broad areas of agreement on the Israel/ Palestine question. What I am replying to is the ridiculous caricature that Bill is providing of the CPGB majority position and his constant accusation that we are racists. I think it is unhelpful to the debate. We could have had a proper discussion on two state/ one state solutions but instead Bill descended into name calling. We should deal with the reality of the CPGB’s majority position not what exists in people imaginations.

    Like

  25. […] The long-awaited debate between Worker’s Liberty patriarch Sean Matgamna, professed Zionist and opponent of troops out now, and Israeli socialist Moshe Machover (HOPI and CMP) finally happened on 12th October. The subject was ‘Israel, the Palestinians, and Iran’, though Matgamna studiously avoids any mention of Iran. The outrage caused by his recent article excusing an Israeli military strike on Iran may have had something to do with it… There is a short report of the meeting at Liam Mac Uaid’s blog here. […]

    Like

  26. I’m not sure, Chris, that Bill called you racist but that the ultimate logic of the majority position- one you Chris don’t share- racist.

    However, precisely because it is open to en emotiional reaction (I certainly don’t like being claled racist) I think it is not patrituclalry helpful.

    I think though it is worth engaging with the idea that we in PR do support the right of different positions in a group- but actually go far further and see the taks as building the movement not a competition between groups.

    Like

  27. Though I note you did agree with this- the urgent task is to begin to build that practical solidarity. For example the demo this Sat in solidarity with asylum seekers against destituion
    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2373

    Like

  28. “I think though it is worth engaging with the idea that we in PR do support the right of different positions in a group- but actually go far further and see the taks as building the movement not a competition between groups.”

    I agree with that, but there is a level of competition between ideas on the left that have to be had out in the open. There has to be room for sharp ideological struggle within organisations on the Left and the in the movement. The competition of ideas is very healthy if it is done in an open, honest and comradely fashion.

    The demo on saturday is very important, we are bringing the HOPI banner and Khave and Behrooz meeting leaflets, so all help would be great. =D

    Like

  29. Well I don’t agree. The right of return is diametrically opposed to the existence of a Jewish state – secular or otherwise.
    But the CPGB are for a Jewish secular state – this is determined in advance – hence their support for the right of return cannot be unconditional. It must be limited and discriminatory.
    The CPGB – I don’t know what gave them the right to decide – have already determined that the Palestinians will be a minority in this state, albeit with “full” rights.
    But evidently not the right to be the majority.
    So not full rights then.
    In fact most definitely not democratic or equal rights.
    A Jewish “secular” state be created only by the same means as the present Jewish “religious” state. By the forced separation of peoples, in other words discriminatory and racist laws.
    That isn’t name calling it is just true.
    What’s more this settlement will be a capitalist one. The idea that a capitalist police and immigration service, established to keep Palestinians a minority in their homeland will be anything other than brutally oppressive is not just misguided but wilfully ignoring the facts.
    It seems odd to me that it is the minority of the CPGB who defend the majority’s support for segregation and discrimination.
    If its such a good argument why can’t they do it themselves?

    Like

  30. Comrades can watch a video of the meeting at the CS website here:

    http://communiststudents.org.uk/?p=1320

    Like

  31. Chris “I agree with that, but there is a level of competition between ideas on the left that have to be had out in the open”

    Of course there should be debate and this is between competing ideas. That is not at all counterposed to building the movement.

    My point though is that this should be the aim- not just building particular groups. Of course within a strong vibrant workers’ movement we can and should build socialist groups- but unless and until socialists are seen as undertaking vital work of defence of working class interests we are unlikely and do not deserve to grow. That is why we need to go beyond the simplistic join us as the only way forward.

    Bill you are right that any two states solution would be based on exclusion and segregation and that is racist. However, this shouldn’t slip over into implying that the CPGB is racist.

    Rereading your posts you didn’t actually but I think it would be bettwer and clearer to argue that the CPGB position is confused and misguided and that the only possible implementation of two states short of a socialist revolution will inevitably lead to one state dominating and excluding the other.

    Like

  32. Why don’t we focus on the real problem with the CPGB’s position rather than setting up straw man arguments and making snide comments.

    The problem with the CPGB’s position is that it accepts the existence of Israel as a fact of history. For the CPGB, despite the brutal and reactionary nature of its origins, it exists and cannot be wiped out of existence. Hence the two-state solution, which as far as I can gather is predicated on the winning of the Israeli masses to a democratic secular revolution (in keeping with their stageism), one in which the Palestinians would be granted the right of return (unlike the position of the AWL) and would have full rights. The logic being that this right does not negate the existence of an Israeli state, since not all Palestinians would avail themselves of this right. The CPGB do not conceive of this state as an exclusivist state. Therefore references to racism and Jim Crow segregations only serve to create confrontational exchanges rather than engender a debate. After all, the CPGB is hardly alone in posing such a solution. I suspect many of the people we work alongside in the anti-war movement would share this position. In fact the SWP even argued against Respect adopting a one-state position on Palestine for this reason. We need to convince “two-staters” they are wrong with argument, something we are hardly likely to do if we denounce their position as racist.

    Oh and the CPGB has every “right to decide”, as an organisation what position to take on the Palestinian struggle, just as we in PR have. Otherwise, “what is the point of a party? It is to fight for a political position” (to quote Bill above).

    Like

  33. Clive Searle’s email made me giggle; I doubt he’s ever had a debate with SO/AWL about the middle east: too busy sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting “zionist!”

    A see Bill J has used his cut and paste function again.

    If the AWL two states line is racist then I guess the USFI is too (and the PNC line from 1988 onwards).

    Like

  34. Nicely put Tina.

    Like

  35. Paul m wrote:

    Clive Searle’s email made me giggle; I doubt he’s ever had a debate with SO/AWL about the middle east: too busy sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting “zionist!”

    A bit rich given the AWL’s disgusting propensity to squeal “anti-semitism” at those who support the Palestinian struggle.

    Like

  36. Paul M’s post is rather bizarre considering the fact that I haven’t even commented on this thread.

    But nice to know that I’m apparently making him giggle. How sweet.

    Like

  37. Hi Tina,

    The discussion would be better if you stopped getting some basic things wrong:

    The AWL supports the Palestinian struggle for their own homeland; two states, which certainly was the PNC/PLO position from 1988 onwards.

    Like

  38. HI Paul M
    But it would be even better if you accurately represented the AWL’s position, which is opposed to the right of return in contrast to the the PLO.
    And yes Tina’s right the CPGB have the right to decide their own position – obviously – but they don’t have the right to decide where Palestinians should live.

    Like

  39. The PLO change of position came about because they were murdered and bombed into submission. Not a fate that can apply to the AWL……………….add you own comment here lol

    Like

  40. Just because some sections of the AWL don’t see a problem with Iranian civilians getting slaughtered as collateral damage to defend the Israeli state isn’t a persuasive argument for wishing the same on them.

    Like

  41. I do apologise Clive. I have no idea it Richard did the same, but it’s difficult not to draw a similar conclusion.

    Bill J: so i take it I’m right about the PLO and two states. As for the right to return: it’s a utopian demand which means the destruction of Israel, and would be implemented by whom and how exactly?

    Like

  42. Arbuckle, so their position now is the result of being bombed into submission? You make no sense big lad. And Liam, how do you think a single state might be established in the middle east?

    Like

  43. the AWL are really the scabs of the movement. Lets face it supporting a nuclear attack on Iran is about as low as it gets.

    Like

  44. Cynical amusement Avatar
    Cynical amusement

    I like neither group, so watching them knock nine bells out of each other has a certain comedy value…

    Like

  45. The AWL do not support a nuclear attack on Iran. Nobody in the AWL has ever suggested any support for such a thing. This is myth spun entirely from whole cloth.
    If we’re going to have this debate, can it at least be about the positions that people actually hold.

    Like

  46. You can listen to the audio files of the debate on the AWL website. They have no resemblance to the anonymous account at the head of this series of comments.

    Just a few points. Moshe has written that Israel “has no right to exist” “in anything like its present form”. Several speakers on 12 October made clear that they considered the “dismantling” of Israel – putting the Israeli Jews under the rule of an Arab-majority state – as a precondition for peace. We argued for “two states” and against that. It is not an imaginary position.

    You can verify from the audio files that the uproar started with AWL speaker Dan Randall being shouted at for criticising sarcastic talk about “nasty Hezbollah”, “nasty Hamas”, etc. They really are nasty, he said. Like most AWL speeches, Dan’s was objective, concerned with the actual issues. He was able to complete his speech, but only after a while, and after intervention by the chair.

    There was much uproar and irritable heckling at a number of later points, but at least as much from the anti-AWL than from the AWL side, despite some WW speakers deliberately make provocative personalised attacks on AWLers (e.g. Ben Lewis on Jim Denham).

    WW speakers addressed the issues? Eh? All of their speeches apart from Mike McNair’s consisted of rants based on their peculiar, not to say lying, constructions upon Sean Matgamna’s article in Solidarity 3/136. Transcripts of John Bridge’s and Peter Manson’s, for example, are available on our website.

    The measure of it is that we have had to engage in a fair deal of correspondence with the WW office, after the debate, to find out what WW’s substantive position on Israel-Palestine is…! Certainly none of the speeches gave a clue.

    The latest story from the WW, if I’ve got it right, is that the last time they took a vote, they had a majority for “two states”. They have a minority for the view that the Israeli Jews must be brought under Arab rule as a precondition for peace. Some of them are moving to a position, as they put it, “closer to Moshe Machover’s”.

    Diversity of views? Ok. But why then were they all so vigorously applauding the speakers on the “dismantle Israel” wavelength at the debate?

    I’ve written a report of the debate here. Check it out, and then check against the audio files to see which is more accurate, my report or the one above.

    Like

  47. Steve,

    Where does the AWL say is supports a nuclear attack, or indeed any attack on Iran?

    Like

  48. Sadly paulm, I spent too much of my time in the late 1980s debating with the SO at NUS conferneces and on the NUS executive. I thought at the time that that their concession to zionism were a slippery slope to much worse positions – regardless of where I had my fingers. The current ‘debate’ over Iran suggests I was right. I’ve now no interest in debating with such people – it’s just too tragic. Sorry to disappoint.

    Like

  49. Hi Clive,

    And you sllpped into supporting reactionary forces such as Hamas and god knows who, and championing Galloway.

    And the truth is the SWP would never debate the “irrelevant” SO and ended supporting right wing labourites against SO in NUS elections.

    Plus ca change.

    Like

  50. If Sean Matgamna is obliged to ask the rhetorical question

    “But if the Israeli airforce attempts to stop Iran developing the capacity to wipe it out with a nuclear bomb, in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?”

    and concludes

    “The harsh truth is that there is good reason for Israel to make a precipitate strike at Iranian nuclear capacity.”

    it’s hardly surprising when his organisation’s views are widely seen as a less sophisticated version of the Israeli Defence Force’s last press release.

    Like

  51. scabs, scabs and scabs.. Really do these warmongers in the AWL really deserve to be treated with anyhting but contempt. Clive is right, the AWL long decline was started when the original concession was made to grub around some votes from the UJS inside the NUS political machine. They got no votes and lost any shread of decency in the process. Scabs scabs.

    Like

  52. Paul M said: “If the AWL two states line is racist then I guess the USFI is too (and the PNC line from 1988 onwards).”

    As far as I know, the USFI hasn’t passed a resolution on the programmatic aspects of the Israel-Palestine conflict for a long time. The main programmatic document that I know of, “The Arab Revolution: Its Character, Present State and Perspectives” dates from March 1974 and “represents in its broad outline the positions of Trotskyists in the Arab region. I doesn’t advocate two states. Gilbert Achcar, in an interview in May this year (http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1477) opposes the one state-two state dichotomy by trying to present the issue in a socialist and regional context, broadly following the argumentation of “The Arab Revolution”, but I think his position needs further elaboration (he appears to suggest that the overthrow of Apartheid has done little to “resolve the national question” in South Africa). Moshe Machover makes a similar point about the sterility of one state vs two states in one of his contributions in the “debate”, as does Roland Rance in a talk on this blog. Both these latter emphasise the importance of equal rights, a basic democratic demand which seems to have eluded Sean Matgamna in his contribution.

    Three comments on Matgamna’s position (from the podcast): one is that he persistently excuses Zionism’s crimes as having nothing to do with the nature of the movement and the state that results from it. Well, at some point the crimes must have accumulated to such a point that they are actually at least indicative of something and might actually suggest: let us at least analyse the structure of Zionism’s progeny, something he appears curiously reluctant to do. (After all, that is what Trotsky did with stalinism).

    Secondly, he identifies Israel and the Israeli state with the Israeli Jewish people and with “Jews” (listen to the last ten minutes of his introduction in particular). I trust he would never do that with “Britain”, the “British State” and the “British people”. This allows him to accuse opponents of the Zionist state of basically wanting a pogrom against Jews.

    Finally, without actually analysing what Israel is, he clearly concludes it is something special in terms of states, as he opposes Palestinian return on the grounds that it will change the nature of Israel. He argues that this has never happened anywhere before. In fact, it has happened in South Africa, where the majority of black were ostensibly “citizens” of the Bantustans and “returned” to South Africa in 1994. And in many respects, that did alter some fundamental aspects of that society. As far as many other societies are concerned, you are on a slippery slope when you start suggesting that mass immigration will “change their nature”.

    Like

  53. Phil, What is the position of the LCR on two states?

    Steve, The two states position lost SO lots of votes in NUS, including the SWP! So get your facts right. As for the scab accusation, well, it doesn’t even deserve a response. Again, I doubt this is the kind of thing you’d say to people in the flesh. Tough from behind your keyboard eh?

    Like

  54. The “debate” was obviously a mistake. No-one on the left should waste any further time on the AWL. The only reason I’m commenting is because of Andy Newman’s defence of the Pol Pot metaphore, not about the SWP per se, but about anyone who did not support Gordon Brown’s solution to the current crisis. This reminds me very much of identical language used by supporters of the right of the ANC to justify embracing neo-liberalism. Unlike that bizarre right wing sect the AWL its an argument of some moment, and the sort of issue that there SHOULD be genuine discussion about.

    Like

  55. I didn’t support Brown’s solution. I was, and still am, calling for full and thoroughgoing nationalisation of the banks. Why can’t you be straight about anything?

    Like

  56. I don’t know what the LCR’s position on two states is, and frankly, even if they said they supported it, it would not mean the same thing as the AWL’s support for two states, which excludes the right of return. The whole tone of my post was that posing the issue in terms of for or against two states might help the AWL present its “unique” (on the left) position, but does nothing else, as following the argumentation of Machover, Achcar and others, it confines the struggle to the current Israeli and Palestinian borders.

    Like

  57. I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to Andy.The SWP is of course not against full nationalisation of the banks in any case. Leave the constant accusations of dishonesty to the American republican right, the AWL, and HP. Thats their standard of debate. Its not a standard socialists should sink to.

    Like

  58. PhilW notes above that “you are on a slippery slope when you start suggesting that mass immigration will ‘change their nature’.” As it happens, I remember a debate some fifteen years ago between Sean Matgamna and Tony Greenstein, in which Matgamna’s response to Tony’s support for the Palestinian right of return was “No state should be expected to absorb an immigration greater than the size of the host community”. Members of the Newham Monitoring Project at the debate were vocal in their disgust.

    And on one state/two states, the ISG’s position, adopted in 2002, notes that “a two-state approach, even in its most generous application, with a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, would still leave unresolved key questions. Without recognising the right of return for the millions of Palestinian refugees, and establishing mechanisms for this to take place, there is no chance of a lasting solution … Our solution is through the establishment of a socialist federation of the Middle East. Within this context, we support the demand for a unitary, democratic and secular Palestine”. Members of the AWL may not agree with this, but cannot pretend that it is anything but clear and unambiguous.

    Like

  59. Good report, Liam (and fair, in my opinion). The AWL were very badly behaved. On their website, they deny that they had been drinking heavily- not sure why they bother, since we can all see on the film that half of them weren’t remotely sober (and Denham could hardly stay upright in his chair…) As for the debate being pointless, I agree entirely. Even my morbid curiosity couldn’t make it past the three hour mark.

    Like

  60. Vicky,

    Which AWL members had been drinking heavily at the meeting, or are you taking your cue from the serial liars of the the WWG?

    Phil and Roland can argue around the edges, but the mainstream USFI position- as far as I know – is million miles way from what we get from the British left. And Roland, could you explain how the ‘right of return’ would work; what would it actually mean in reality?

    Like

  61. Paul, I’m taking my cue from the fact that I was there, sitting about five feet away from Jim Denham! And in the pub beforehand, for that matter. The only AWLers who spoke with the slightest sobriety were Sacha and Cathy.

    Like

  62. John

    I wouldn’t have used the analogy myself, I am just trying to exmplin what i think David Elis meant.

    Also it is perhaps unwise to judge what the SWP, or any left groups thinks only based upon some of the more hysterical coments by their supporteres on blogs.

    Like

  63. Vicky,

    You say that “half of them weren’t remotely sober,” and then mention only Jim Denham as being drunk (which I don’t accept you can conclude from the footage I’ve seen) and then go on to say that only two AWL members, “spoke with the slightest sobriety.” What the hell does that mean? Were all the AWLers who spoke other than the two comrades you mention drunk?

    So besides Jim D, who else was drunk?

    Like

  64. Fascinating though the drinking habits of the AWL isn’t (though it certainly isn’t good practice to turn up to public meetings drunk) perhaps far more serious is to find practical ways of raising solidarity with workers in Iran and rebuilding the workers’ movement here to actually have a chance of mobilising against imperialist attack- as HOPI and other activists do- rather than spend too much time debating with a man who asks in what name we should condemn an israeli attack which he concludes has ‘good reason’.

    This is not only insultingly insensitive to say we don’t care enough to condemn an attack on workers in another country but plays into the hands of the dictatorship. Sean Matgamna’s remarks were a disgrace and the fact that the AWL sees fit to defend them is far worse than being drunk in a public meeting- though that’s pretty poor as well.

    Like

  65. Paul M asks how the “right of return” would work out in practice. I’ve already said that the struggle and the solution need to be seen in a regional (at least) context. The right of return is a propaganda slogan, meaning that the Zionist nature of the Israeli state needs to be ended: i.e. laws need to be enacted (amongst others) that grant land rights to Palestinians within Israel’s borders, including restitution of land to those driven out in 1948 and their descendants, or compensation if this is not practicable.

    The question is what political changes in the region would be necessary for Israel to make such a law, not going into details about how many people would actually make use of the right to return. Presumably, that is why it is called the right to return, not necessarily actual return. It is not a call to force Palestinians back into the area within the 1948 borders against their will.

    Of course, “two-staters”, committed as they seem to be to ethnically-based states, need to go into the practicalities of removal of Israeli Jewish settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and of Palestinian Israelis from within the 1948 borders.

    Like

  66. Vicky,

    I don’t have time for a proper reply now. This stuff about drinking is complete rubbish. I met most of the AWL members, including all of those who spoke, substantially before the meeting and none of them touched a drop of alcohol.

    Eg Martin Thomas? Paul Hampton? Daniel Randall? Are you seriously trying to claim any of them were drunk?

    Sacha

    Like

  67. OK Phil, so the right of return doesn’t actually mean the right of return, it’s a slogan – actually a utopian one – which has no grip on reality.

    As for Jason, trying to give your comrade a way out of her silly comments it seems; you spend a lot of time posting on the AWL site being given the right royal kicking by Dan R, and still you peddle lies, no doubt egged on by far left swamp opinion, about Matgamna and the AWL.

    Maybe you’re “too busy” to actually try to understand that the far left is mire of stupidity and you’re playing along.

    Like

  68. Johng,

    You carefully word your contribution by saying that the SWP are `not against’ the full nationalisation of the banks. Can you post some links where, during this current crisis, the SWP have actively called FOR the nationalisation of the banks in its publicly available material or literature?

    Would be interested. Much appreciated.

    Like

  69. “You carefully word your contribution by saying that the SWP are `not against’ the full nationalisation of the banks. Can you post some links where, during this current crisis, the SWP have actively called FOR the nationalisation of the banks in its publicly available material or literature?”

    I really can’t think of anything nice to say, so I’ll say nothing.

    Like

  70. “As for Jason, …you spend a lot of time posting on the AWL site being given the right royal kicking by Dan R, and still you peddle lies,”

    Well not too much time- it’s the only site I can get on at work tbh and occasionally I just need a break from the grind of marking/teaching/priducing the school magazine (actually the last is quite good)- I actually thought Daniel was relatively reasonable though somewhat floundering as he keeps assuming I beleive things I don’t.

    It’s easier to win arguments when you have to make up what your ‘opponents’ support- but yeah may be I do need to get other past-times!

    As for banks- obviously we should be for nationalisation of banks under workers’ control- not just or primarily the bank workers (though obviously they should have substantial control over their immediate working conditions) but major decisions inspected by and where possible actually made by democratic councils of workers, representing the whole working class- without compensation, for finances and support for public services, for the profits and riches of the ruling class seized to be put into free public trasnport, other essential public services, social housing- all carbon neutral etc. etc. and under democratic control.

    Sorry if that’s like the eruption of a far left swamp but I actually think if we asked most people what they wanted to happen to the fat cats and the banks then some answers like this wouldn’t be too unpopular. Let’s give working class people the right to decide on waht should happen to ‘our’ – or what should be our- money and our society.

    Like

  71. Actually this really would be a mass debate- though without the somewhat unsavoury and presumably intentional pun of Liam’s headline.

    Perhaps mass democracy would be a better title for involving working class people in decisions about our lives.

    Like

  72. Pal M:

    There’s no point in trying to discuss this with you any more, as you are intent on deliberately “misunderstanding” what other people are saying. Read my previous post. Don’t bother to reply, just go and read some books on the nature of the Israeli state.

    Like

  73. Skidmarx: but you did say something.

    Like

  74. “Go and read some books” always the sure sign that someone’s losing the argument.

    Like

  75. Talking of reading books (something I’d throughly recommend though it is not of course counterposed to debate or talking to people) I’d heavily recommend reading Reading Lolita in Tehran- quite on-topic as well as the substance of this debate is about whether or not to condemn an Israeli attack on Iran.

    If you read about the activists in Tehran and their trmendous struggles perhaps it is not so easy to refuse to condemn an attack on either them or an attack that makes their lives infiintely harder- however, whilst there are plenty of tales of heroic workers’ struggle this book focuses more on the rpression of women and how some women come together in a book club to discuss their lives, possibilities of resistance and solidarity. Very moving and informative.

    May be add that one to your list!

    Like

  76. “Skidmarx: but you did say something”

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    Like

  77. Not a problem. Now, how about those links?

    Like

  78. For goodness’ sake- like you don’t beleive me!

    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2375

    “Clearly the trade unions need to go on a war footing. Instead of praising Gordon Brown for his “world leadership” in saving the banks, the union leaders need to demand of the Labour government that they nationalise without compensation all firms announcing large-scale redundancies or closures. These jobs can be protected by government guaranteed orders for their produce, and by adopting a massive programme of public works to convert whole sectors and workforces to the production of green technologies.”

    “Anyone threatened with the sack must be the signal for all to occupy and strike; to demand the books of the company are opened up to workforce and union reps to get a measure of the problem and draw up a plan of action. Workers employed in other firms up and down the supply chain must establish cross-firm links, swap intelligence and prepare resistance, mobilising the local communities in political campaigns to force the government and local councils to nationalise or municipalise.

    The recession is a reality. The only question now is how to resist and prevent it being “cured” at the expense of working class families across the country.”

    I’m not sure what it proves linking to another website when I;ve said the same thing on here but if it’s links you want you got it!

    The important thing is to fight for workers’ action to focre nationalisation under workers’ control without compensation etc.

    Like

  79. Paul M:

    There hasn’t been a meaningful “argument”. You have not said anything substantive about the issues under discussion: i.e. the nature of zionism and Israel and what a “two state” solution means. You simply distort and show disdain for others’ views. You’re better off reading a book and we’re certainly better off if you go and read a book.

    Just one point: the right to abortion doesn’t mean the every woman has to have an abortion.

    Like

  80. Jason, I must say, you are full of platitudes. Some people like that. Propagandism, though good, in itself ends in political quietism. To join a sect is to drop out of politics. I think, if you don’t want to repeat past mistakes you and PR should join Respect forthwith and get your hands dirty.

    Like

  81. Yeah right. You asked for evidence of links of socialists demanding nationalisation. I gave you one.

    We have been involved in campaigns like th eone that defeated Section 9, against the eviction of migrant families- one that won.

    Campaigns against fascism and racism in Oldham.

    Camapigns against privatisation including illegal solidarity strike action in support of workers getting a living wage- which won.

    If you have abody of ideas there is nothing wrong with being in a group to discuss and deabte ideas- ideas that should be put into practice.

    Unlike you I think propagandism is bad- not good. Discussion of ideas for their own sake not related to action and building campaigns makes people think the left’s just a bunch of windbags.

    Sects are about promoting your group. For me the most improtant thing is building the class struggle and socialism- reducing this to just promoting a party is not the way forward.

    We really should get our hands dirty – some Respect supporters are involved in vatious campaigns. Good. Out of those we can begin to reach out and branch out- it may even help each group. What is important though is building the confidence and power of the organised working class.

    Like

Leave a reply to johng Cancel reply

Trending