[Militant International Review, No. 48, Summer 1992, p. 17-23]
Sam Lewenstein looks at the prospects for the Middle East peace talks.
The beginning of the Middle East peace talks took place in a blaze of world-wide media coverage. For the first time sworn enemies sat across negotiating tables. Hopes were raised for a final end to the never-ending cycle of war and bloody conflict in the Middle East. But is a settlement possible? Can these negotiations reconcile the aspirations of the Palestinians for a national homeland and, at the same time, the fears Israeli Jewish workers have for their security?
These talks do represent a new departure. Their extensive nature, in terms of the number of countries involved, is not accidental, but is rooted in recent developments in the Middle East, as well as the titanic changes in world relations over the last two years.
The Middle East has long been a region of vital strategic and economic importance to the superpowers, because of its oil supplies. Huge resources were pumped into the region by the Soviet Union and the US, each vying to get the upper hand in the number of client states they influenced. None of the contradictions in the region were solved. In fact they were exacerbated, leading to a periodic outbreak of bloody wars and a constant conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian masses.
1989 changed this. The massive movements which swept Stalinist regimes from power across Eastern Europe had immediate effect within the Middle East. The then Soviet Union began to withdraw funding, and its favourable trade agreements, with countries like Syria. As the Wall Street Journal said on 30 October, 1991: „Shorn of his old patron. the Soviet Union, and any hope of allying himself with a strong Iraqi military in a war against Israel. the Syrian president has no choice but to appease the US and avoid hostilities with the Jewish state.“
The extent to which the former Soviet Union has declined as a world superpower is indicated by the evolution of the peace talks themselves. Originally a joint US/Soviet sponsored event, when the first session opened in October 1991 a demoralised and broken Gorbachev used his speech to plead for aid for the fast disintegrating Soviet Union. By the time talks were held in Russia, now part of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Yeltsin did not even turn up and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had to underwrite the costs.
The collapse of Stalinism left a power vacuum for US imperialism in the Middle East. The USA’s intervention in the Gulf war further increased its commitments in the region. The victory over Iraq was US imperialism’s biggest success since world war two. After stalemate in Korea and defeat in Vietnam, this victory boosted the confidence of the American ruling class to attempt further counter-revolutionary interventions in the neo-colonial world.
But while the US achieved a relatively easy military victory, winning the peace has been fraught with difficulties. Grand plans for a Gulf Cooperation Force, based on the armies of Middle Eastern countries who participated in Operation Desert Storm, have come to nothing. None of the rulers of the countries involved trust each other enough to stomach foreign troops on their soil. Neither were they prepared to fund such a venture.
Moreover, US imperialism, portraying itself as the ‚defender of democracy‘ during the Gulf war, promised a solution to the problems of the Middle East. However, Saddam Hussein cleverly used the oppression of the Palestinians, promising to withdraw from Kuwait if the Palestinians were granted a homeland. While Bush vehemently opposed any ‚linkage‘, this had an effect on the consciousness of the Arab masses in particular. It was brought home to Bush and other US bourgeois strategists the potential for further bitter conflict around the Palestinian question.
The reactionary Arab leaders felt obliged to put pressure on the US, although not out of any heartfelt concern for the super-oppressed Palestinians. While many of these rulers have portrayed themselves as champions of the Palestinians‘ cause, this has been mainly to deflect criticism of their own rule by the masses of the Middle East. After the Gulf war, this became especially important given that they had participated in what was perceived by wide layers of the Arab masses as a bloody intervention by imperialism to protect its strategic interests in the region.
A number of factors forced the reactionary Likud government to the negotiating table.
The main driving force, therefore, behind US imperialism’s desire to find some sort of settlement, has been the enormous instability that exists in the Middle East. This has increased markedly since the Gulf war, particularly because of the economic devastation which resulted from the conflict. US imperialism hopes that by achieving a ‚peace settlement‘ they can at least delay the onset of a new conflagration.
* *
*
What is publicly on offer in these negotiations as far as US imperialism is concerned? The US hopes for an end to the Arab boycott of trade with Israel and the development of regional economic agreements, including on water supplies; issues which have the potential of sparking off a new war in the future. The US would also be prepared to discuss the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Golan Heights and the South Lebanon security zone in return for Arab ‚guarantees‘ of Israeli security. Limited self-government in the occupied territories for a trial period of two years is also proposed. This would allow the Palestinians to elect local councils with limited powers. After five years they hope that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would lead to some sort of autonomy. No mention is made of the status of the Israeli army (IDF) in the territories during this period.
What is the secret agenda of US imperialism behind this public position? By setting up new regional economic agreements, involving discussions on further aid to the Middle East, the US hopes to be able to balance between the Arab countries and Israel to maintain an uneasy peace, using dollars as a carrot or stick where necessary.
Concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the US hopes limited self-government will be enough to cause splits in the Palestinian masses and isolate those mainly young Palestinians who have been at the forefront of the intifada, and who regard participation in the talks as a betrayal of the struggle for national liberation of their people. In effect they hope to derail the intifada, the magnificent struggle which has rocked the Israeli state to its foundations over the last four years.
* *
*
Historically, having created the basis for the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has resulted in six bloody wars in the region, the US has attempted periodically to paper over the instability in a vain attempt to protect their strategic interests and oil supplies to the West. But this is US imperialism’s most serious attempt yet to find a negotiated regional settlement.
To secure the participation of most Arab countries required huge pressure. But the prospect of more US aid in return for participation in the talks, given the economic devastation caused by the Gulf war, was a compelling factor. The war caused huge population movements, among them over 360,000 Palestinians expelled from Kuwait. The poorer Arab countries lost billions of dollars in remittances from their workers in the Gulf states. The UN-imposed boycott of trade with Iraq also drove them into deep crisis.
Jordan, for example, has seen a 10% rise in population since the end of the war, as 300,000 Palestinian refugees entered the country. Its foreign debt has increased to $8bn, with at least $1bn per annum being lost in remittances. The number of people living below the poverty line has increased to one million, nearly a third of the population, while 150,000 people have no income whatsoever. The war meant the loss of $3.6bn in trade, equal to 77% of GDP.
A number of factors were instrumental in forcing the right-wing reactionary Likud government to the negotiating table. During the Gulf war civilian areas were hit by missiles for the first time in Israeli history. This had a huge effect on Israeli workers‘ psychology. The promise of every government that economic sacrifices by Israeli workers were necessary to prevent military attacks of this sort has been shown to be false. The Gulf war helped to crystallise a feeling of war weariness which is a constant feature among Israeli Jews. Just before the Madrid conference opened, 91% of Israelis supported participation in the peace talks. Fifty thousand demonstrated in Tel Aviv.
The four year-old intifada has also had a profound effect on the consciousness of Israeli Jews. Zionism’s slogan prior to the foundation of Israel was: ‚A land without people, for a people without a land.‘ Golda Meir, former Israeli prime minister, put it more succinctly: ‚There are no such people as the Palestinians.‘ The tenacious and determined struggle conducted by young Palestinians and workers has changed all this. Beneath the surface, most Israeli Jews now understand that a military ’solution‘ to the Palestinian question would lead to a bloody civil war, with no guarantee of victory.
The wish for peace among the majority of Israeli Jews is generalised: what it hides however are the different currents of consciousness that exist among workers and young Israelis. Some believe that concessions must be made to the Palestinians and that there must be an end to the permanent state of war that Israel faces. Others support participation in the talks, in order to drive a hard bargain and to make sure no significant concessions are given to the Palestinians, to gain time for Israel to strengthen itself for a future war. There is a lurking fear that these talks like others will fail: even in the heady days of the initial Madrid talks, 37% believed this to be the case.
Added to this is the developing economic crisis exacerbated by the aliyah (immigration) of 320,000 Soviet Jews. The Israeli government greeted their arrival as a huge propaganda coup, a demographic victory over the fast expanding Palestinian population: reinforcements for the beleaguered Israeli State surrounded by hostile Arab neighbours and threatened from within by the menace of the Palestinians. While the arrival of the Soviet Jews has led to a boost in the housing market, this has been at the expense of a huge increase in foreign debt.
Moreover, Palestinian workers from both sides of the green line, normally hired to do the most menial jobs, have been sacked to give jobs to new immigrants, leading to rocketting unemployment, plunging living standards and developing social collapse in the Arab areas of Israel and the occupied territories.
But the immigrants are, in the main, highly qualified and discontented with the new situation they face. Unemployment among the new arrivals is 40% and such is the economic pressure on the government that the new immiigrants grant has now been turned into a ioan. Inflation has reached 18% while according to government figures, over 570,000 Israeli Jews live below the poverty line. The most optimistic forecasts look to a growth rate in the economy of 1-2% this year. The country lost $lbn during the Gulf war. While a propaganda victory for the Israeli regime, the arrival of the Sovict Jews introduces more explosive material into society, because of the inability of Israeli capitalism to absorb them.
Shamir’s government, therefore, was desperate for US agreement to guarantee $10bn worth of loans. Israel has been dependent upon US financial support from its formation. Since 1949 the US has given Israel $54bn in aid, equivalent to $1,000 per vear for every man, Woman and child in the country. So Bush was given his bargaining counter on a plate — he simply refused to authorise the loans until after the peace talks were concluded. This is the most severe pressure applied by any US president against Israel, and indicates the seriousness with which US imperialism approached the talks.
Despite this setback, Shamir and his government have not fundamentally changed their position of refusing to make territorial concessions to the Palestinians in return for ‘peace’. The Likud leaders have launched a new phase of an old war: the forced dispossession of Palestinians and the confiscation of their land. In the past year the rate of building new houses for settlers has doubled. Some analysts predict that the Jewish population of the occupied territories will pass 250,000 this year. Between one and two-thirds of all housing starts in Israel will be made in the territories. While they are discussing peace in Madrid and Moscow, the Likud government has been creating ‘facts’ on the ground.
* *
*
The agreement of the PLO to the start of negotiations was also intially important to US imperialism. The massive concessions the PLO leadership made are a consequence of their mistaken policies of the past. Unfortunately, they retain the illusion that imperialism can be pressurised to grant an autonomous Palestinian state in the Middle East. They have conducted a dual policy of diplomacy on the one hand and attacks on Israeli targets on the other. Neither has worked. The PLO’s policy of individual terrorism has sacrificed the lives of some of the best young Palestinians while driving Jewish workers into the arms of the state without fundamentally threatening the Israeli regime. While the PLO leadership has relied on reactionary Arab regimes for support, these have been prepared to betray the Palestinian people at each decisive turning point.
During the Gulf war, there was huge support for Saddam amongst Palestinians, because of his verbal championing of their cause but also because he attacked imperialism. If the PLO leaders had refused to recognise this pressure from below, they would have been totally discredited. But this support for Saddam had a price. After the war, the Gulf states who had supplied the PLO with billions of dollars, cut off their funding. If they had not accepted the US conditions then they would have been left out in the diplomatic cold.
As a result the PLO agreed not to have their own delegation or to have any official representatives on the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. They also agreed to the exclusion of any East Jerusalem Palestinians. This represented a huge climbdown, as this area was annexed during the 1967 war and even the UN regards it as occupied territory! East Jerusalem is the capital of West Bank political life.
There are different trends amongst the Palestinians, both supporting and opposing the negotiations. The intifada has continued despite facing one of the most brutal and well-armed state machines in the world. However, while the movement has not been broken, the intifada has not been armed with a strategy to split the social basis of support for the Israeli state. As a result no. significant concessions have been wrested from the Israeli ruling class. With no apparent headway being made, with 750 Palestinian deaths, 50,000 wounded in Gaza alone, and 15,000 detained, the mass participation in the intifada which was a characteristic of the early days, has largely subsided for the time being.
As a result sections of the Palestinian population have reluctantly accepted the peace talks in the absence of anything else. If a settlement is reached on limited self-government then it is likely that amongst sections of the masses there would be a resigned acceptance, with the hope that autonomy and an independent state may follow.
Among the hard core of the intifada, mainly made up of young Palestinians, there is strong opposition to negotiations and any sort of settlement short of in independent Palestinian state. These youth feel betrayed by the Palestinian delegation, fearing that yet another layer of their leaders is being drawn into the orbit of US imperialism to be bogged down in endless negotiations and bought off with promises of leading positions within whatever self-government may be agreed upon.
These fears are well founded. In the Washington talks Palestinian delegates boasted that their speeches had been written in co-operation with the US State Department. demonstrating their ‚return to favour‘ with the Americans. During the negotiations new ‚political action committees‘ have been set up in the occupied territories. Their function, explained Faisal al-Husseini, a leading East Jerusalem Palestinian, „is to protect the peace process. They will protect the street from high expectations and desperate feelings.“ (Jerusalem Report, 28 November 1991 ). In other words, to reassert control in the territories and provide a new layer of ‚leadership‘ to sell any possible settlement to the Palestinian masses.
* *
*
There is no doubt that among some workers and young Israelis there are enormous illusions in these negotiations. At best they hope a lasting peace will be reached; at worst, at least the next war will be delayed.
Yet it would be completely wrong to support the idea that these talks, even if they produce some sort of agreement, would be the first step to peace and an independent Palestinian state. To do this would be to confuse and mislead those Jewish workers and youth who look to the talks to produce a lasting peace. since at a certain stage it would become clear that the interests of US imperialism, Israeli capitalism, and the reactionary Arab nationalist leaders cannot be reconciled with such a solution. Incapable of solving the huge social and economic problems that exist in the Middle East, they will not be able therefore to provide an answer to the national conflicts which are a running sore in the region. The Palestinians are not just fighting for an independent homeland. They are also fighting for decent housing. education, wages and jobs, which they have been denied for so long. That is why the struggle for national liberation and socialism are interlinked.
The political map of the Middle East is not just composed of the borders of the different countries. A closer look shows a criss-cross of numerous fracture lines within and between countries, the result of huge social, economic and political pressures. While a formal agreement might paper over the surface of one or two of these cracks, the contradictions would still exist ready to burst through at any moment. The example of the recent magnificent Lebanese general strike shows this. In four days the government was swept from power. A movement like this in any Middle Eastern country could provide the conditions for earth-shattering events which would render any ‚agreement‘ meaningless.
it is possible then that a tenuous agreement could be reached on limited measures of self government for the Palestinians. It may be possible, particularly after the general election in June, for there to be negotiations on the withdrawal of the IDF from the Golan Heights. But the most that the Israeli government is likely to consider is its replacement by UN forces to protect the 20,000 remaining Jewish settlers, in order to stop a massive reaction in Israel. But this is like trying to square the circle. These are massive contradictions dressed up in the clothes of solutions.
That the ‚peace process‘ could produce a long-term solution involving the creation of a Palestinian homeland, based on the occupied territories and answering the fears Israeli Jews have for their security, is completely ruled out. Such a homeland would face the opposition of 170,000, armed and mainly reactionary. Jewish settlers. Just the economic cost of re-settlement would be $20bn. But, as Eliakim Haetzni. a right-wing MP said: „Autonomy for Palestinians will mean a terrorist Palestinian state. It will bring civil war.“ If forcible re-settlement was attempted there is no doubt a civil war would take place. Faced with no alternative solution many Jews living in Israel proper would be stampeded through fears for their security into supporting the settlers.
Moreover, no mention has been made in the ‚peace‘ negotiations of the two-and-a-half million Palestinian refugees spread throughout the Middle East. The contradiction that lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from the foundation of Israel in 1948, was that a supposedly safe haven for Jews fleeing the holocaust was built on the basis of the forced expulsion of the Palestinians. creating a new diaspora in the Middle East. Perhaps the greatest support for a Palestinian homeland. and the greatest bitterness towards the Israeli state, is felt among these refugees.
But the US could not countenance an independent Palestinian state with the right of return. Such a development would lead to a huge revolutionary movement among the Palestinians. The release from four decades of brutal repression would unleash movement with huge expectations and increased confidence which would eventually engulf the Arab masses of the entire region in the struggle for decent living standards and democracy, Therefore, while the US may be prepared to push the Israelis to make concessions in order to derail the Palestinian struggle. they will do nothing to threaten the stability of their most important outpost in the region.
* *
*
It is not possible then to know precisely what limited ‚agreement‘ these peace talks could produce or how long they will last. There are numerous points at which they could break down. The outcome of the Israeli elections in June is certainly a ‚wild card‘ in the equation. The Likud government lost its parliamentary majority as two right-wing parties, Moledet and Tebiya, deserted the government because of rumours that the Israeli delegation was offering the Palestinians limited self government. Although this precipitated new elections, the extreme rights withdrawal came at an opportune time for Shamir. The ‚progress‘ of the peace talks has been slowed and the US presidential elections which follow will delay the possibility of any conclusion to the talks being reached.
In addition, Shamir has been able to portray himself as the leader best able to safeguard Israel’s security in talks with the Palestinians, previously having been handicapped by the intransigent extreme-right. Of course. this will not stop him attempting to bribe the far-right and religious parties with generous donations to their organisations in a possible scramble to form a new government after the elections.
Since elections were called there has been a shift towards the Labour Party. primarily due to the dissatisfaction with the Likud government. While many Soviet Jews oppose ’socialism‘, as they see it, their extreme discontent with the progress of absorption has tipped them to support Labour on economic issues. The election of Yitzhak Rabin as new leader of the Labour Party has also been a factor.
Seen as a ’strong leader‘, without the taint of defeat that his predecessor Shimon Perez had, Rabin has showed a flexibility mot previously displayed concerning the Palestinians. Interviewed by The Independent, (17 April 1992). he avoided a direct answer on the issue of statehood but said: „I am not saving the Palestinians have no rights to aspire to.“ His view of Palestinian autonomy is almost that of US imperialism – limited self-government for five years excluding jurisdiction over security and foreign affairs. With the suggestion that $10bn worth of loans would be granted to a Labour government, US imperialism has clearly shown where its support lies at this juncture.
Rabin also commented glowingly of „the new generation of very educated and clever people“ in the occupied territories. He is referring here to the negotiators involved in the peace talks whom, if handled correctly, he hopes to lean on as a political influence over the Palestinian masses.
If Labour is elected, then it is more likely that a short-term agreement on self-government could be reached. The Labour administration would probably inject more money into the territories which, while not fundamentally changing the situation, could provide hope for future change. It would also create the financial basis for building up a new Palestinian leadership in the territories. Rabin would probably switch some money presently being spent on the huge expansion of new settlements in the occupied territories to spending on unemployment and other social issues within Israel.
If Likud wins, then a short-term agreement is less likely but nevertheless possible under the pressure of US imperialism. What may transpire is an endless round of talks followed by a breakdown at a certain stage. If there is a national government, it is more likely that Likud would be forced to reach some sort of agreement. or face another general election with the likelihood of defeat.
* *
*
However, while US imperialism will do its utmost to keep them going, behind the facade of the peace talks the different regimes are preparing for renewed war within the next few years. Syria is spending the $2bn it received for participation in the Gulf war on new advanced Scud missiles from North Korea and China. Their range includes all major civilian areas in Israel. Despite the US refusal to grant $10bn loans to Israel, it continues to supply advanced military technology to its main ally in the Middle East.
It is not clear on exactly what issue a future war could break out. But there is enough raw material to provide the first spark. One issue could be water supplies. Elias Salameh, professor of water resources at Jordan University, recently said: „Sometime between 1995 and 2005 there is a high probability that Israel, Jordan and the West Bank will face such progressively worsening shortages that there will be a conflict.“ Israel has always kept. strict military objectives regarding water supplies during its wars against the Arab countries. During the last stages of the 1967 war its army made a rush for the headwaters of the River Jordan. By redirecting water into Israel’s national water-carrying system, the Jordan has been reduced to a trickle in its lower reaches. The Israeli government has previously threatened to destroy any attempt to build a dam on the River Yarmuk, in Jordan.
Upheavals in Egypt. Jordan, Lebanon or Syria could also precipitate new wars. The Bonapartist dictatorship of President Assad in Syria has based its rule on hostile opposition to Israel. For decades the Syrian Ba’ath party demanded huge sacrifices from its population on the basis of military opposition to the ‚Zionist enemy‘. Now they are negotiating with this enemy. This contradiction could provide the spark for a social explosion which would demand an end to food and consumer goods shortages, as well as democratic rights and an end to the one-party regime. Such a development would reverberate throughout the region, with a direct impact on the course of the Palestinian struggle in Israel and the occupied territories.
The inability of US imperialism to bankroll the financially crippled Arab regimes will lead to enormous struggles unfolding. The unease felt amongst wide layers of the Arab masses towards the intervention of US imperialism in the Gulf. despite their opposition to Saddam Hussein’s regime, will crystallise into outright anger at the new hardships they face. This will fuse with the anger of those Arab workers and peasants who supported Saddam and who, despite being cowed in the immediate aftermath of the war, feel an increasingly bitter hatred towards imperialism’s role in the region.
This anger will be directed against the leaders of their own regimes first. who will be seen as the stooges of imperialism, receiving money from the US but unwilling to end the poverty of their own masses. It was a similar process which lead to the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981 by one of his own soldiers, three years after he had signed the Camp David peace accord with the Israeli government.
Contradictory trends will appear amongst the Palestinian masses whatever the outcome of the talks. Certainly, the Palestinian youth at the forefront of the intifada feel that their struggle has been stabbed in the back by their leaders‘ participation in these talks. With the eclipse of the Communist Party as a pole of attraction. there will be a growth in support for the different Islamic fundamentalist groups. They are seen as the most consistent opponents of imperialism in the Middle East. Their position has been to boycott the peace talks, and to increase individual terrorist attacks against Israeli targets.
The election successes of the fundamentalists in Algeria will boost their support while the military coup will elevate them to martyrdom. Driven by hatred towards the Zionist Israeli government and frustration at not being able to make headway in the struggle for national liberation, increasing numbers of the most militant young Palestinians will commit further acts of individual terrorism, which although requiring great personal bravery, will be futile in their results.
These will have the effect of driving Israeli Jews further to the right. Israeli Jewish settlers have promised to establish a new settlement for every attack against them. The Likud government have surreptitiously supported this. They have also legalised the formation of vigilante groups of settlers to tour the territories. But beating the drum of security will not solve the social problems that will face the incoming Israeli government. whatever its composition.
The inability of imperialism, Zionism and the reactionary Arab regimes to provide an answer to the social, political, and economic problems will lead to a worsening of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At times Israel will teeter on the brink of civil war while at other times social conflict will come to the fore.
Palestinian and Jewish workers are separated by a formidable barrier created by the national conflict. Despite geographical proximity, developments among Jewish workers are hidden from the Palestinians by this barrier which is of a political and physical character. The latter because of the repressive measures of the IDF, which have turned the Palestinian areas of the occupied territories into Bantustan ghettos: the former because many Palestinians direct their hatred of the ‚Zionist government’s‘ actions against all Israeli Jews – a response which is encouraged by the PLO’s lack of strategy and tactics to win national liberation.
The situation in the Middle East is crying out for a solution which only the ideas of workers‘ unity and genuine socialism can provide. The Palestinian masses and Jewish workers will go through bitter experiences. With the growth of Marxist ideas and their own experience, the Palestinians will realise that the only way in which national liberation can be achieved is by neutralising or splitting away support of Jewish workers from the Zionist state, and uniting the masses of the region in the struggle for socialism.
Worsening social conditions will force Jewish workers onto the road of struggle once again. Solidarity action between different groups of Jewish workers will solve the problem of fragmentation that exists. The crumbling away of national unity against the ‚menace‘ of surrounding Arab countries, will be a product of this process. It is along this road that increasing numbers of workers and young Israelis will be won to the ideas of Marxism.
The struggle for workers‘ unity and socialism will mean the overthrow of the reactionary Arab regimes, and Zionism and capitalism in Israel. This will clear the way for the construction of a socialist federation of Middle Eastern countries, Containing a socialist Palestinian state alongside a socialist Israel. A democratically planned economy under workers‘ control could provide the basis to solve the social, economic and political problems which have fed the fires of nationalism since 1948.
Schreibe einen Kommentar