JERUSALEM-According to the Camp David accords May 26 was to have been the deadline for the Egyptian-Israeli negotiations on the status of the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since the June 1967 war. Today even the most fanatic supporters of those accords are forced to recognize that this May 26, far from witnessing the birth of the plan for autonomous administration of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, was instead marked by rejection of the imperialist accords by the Palestinian people and by an important turning point in their struggle for liberation against the Zionist occupation.
People's Rebellion on West Bank
"The situation on the West Bank is becoming more and more serious and one does not need too great an imagination to fear that the latest events in the occupied territories signal a beginning of people's rebellion." That is how an April 28 editorial in the most serious Israeli daily Haaretz, described the situation on the West Bank.
The term "people's rebellion" is not an exaggeration. Since early March there have been no fewer than eight general strikes, including a three day strike on the anniversary of the independence of the state of Israel. All those strikes had mass participation. In contrast to previous strikes, the latest strikes involved not only high-school students and shopkeepers, but also the workers, including a major segment of the approximately 80,000 who travel to work within Israel's 1948 borders.
Significantly, the population and the shopkeepers in the Arab section of Jerusalem took an active part in these actions, which was not at all the case in previous years.
Along with the strikes, street demonstrations have also become a widespread phenomenon. Whether they took place in university centers like Bir Zeit, in big cities like Ramallah or Nablus, or even in small villages like Anapta, every few days a demonstration would "disturb the peace" somewhere. These demonstrations are, of course, formally prohibited and are nearly always met with violent repression by the occupation forces.
It is especially important to note that the composition of these demonstrations is changing. They are no longer composed exclusively of high-school students, although obviously these students continue to play a central role in them. But now for the first time the masses of common people are also mobilizing in the streets.
On May 8, for example, more than 2,000 people with Palestinian flags demonstrated in the main street of Arab Jerusalem on the anniversary of the "unification" of the city thirteen years ago.
The depth of the radicalization in the occupied territories can be seen on the level of individual reactions: people throw stones and molotov cocktails at military patrols, they refuse to hold their tongues and bow their heads during identification checks, they wear clothes bearing the Palestinian colors, and above all they have the courage to publicly declare that they reject the occupation and the autonomy plan and support the Palestinian organizations.
The most significant incident in several months was the May 2 attack on a large group of Kiryat Arba settlers that took place in the middle of Hebron. (Kiryat Arba is the largest Jewish settlement in the occupied territories and overlooks Hebron.)
That attack, which took place only a few yards from Israeli soldiers, was different from other armed operations carried out by the Palestinian resistance. The differences lay not only in the audacity of the commandos, but also in the choice of objectives, the moment chosen, and especially the interconnection of this operation with mobilizations of the local population and with the sentiments of larger and larger currents within the Israeli population. The Conjunctural Causes of the Radicalization
Clearly, as the previously cited editorial in Haaretz stated, "the roots [of the rebellion] must be sought in the very logic of a military occupation whose oppressive character brings with it terrorism, and terrorism in turn brings even stronger repression, and so on. ..." But in addition to this root cause, we must also look for the conjunctural causes of the present radicalization.
In fact, after late 1976, when the occupation forces used fierce repression to stop several months of big demonstrations, there was relative quiet in the occupied territories.
In the first place, contrary to the statements of Israeli authorities, the resistance demonstrations did not provoke the intensification of the occupation, but rather it was a series of Israeli provocations that provoked a chain reaction within the occupied population.
The most important of these provocations is the all-out settlement policy being carried out right in the heart of the Palestinian population centers. In contrast to its Labor Party predecessor, the present Likud government openly and publicly argues that the territory of Israel (Palestine) is indivisible, and asserts it has the rieht and indivisible, and asserts it has the right and duty to establish Jewish settlements throughout all of Palestine.
With support at the highest levels, and with the crude methods and provocative statements of General Ariel Sharon, the Likud government began a campaign of accelerated settlement throughout the occupied territories. It started expropriating thousands of acres of private, cultivated land-which the Labor Party had tried to avoid, or at least tried to do as discreetly as possible. And it announced to the whole world, and particularly to the Palestinians, that the West Bank was for once and for all an integral part of the state of Israel.
This policy, linked to Prime Minister Menachem Begin's draft plan for autonomous administration, was undoubtedly the biggest factor in sparking the appearance of a new wave of struggles in the occupied territories. "Today we are carrying out a defensive struggle," one of the central leaders of the nationalist movement in the occupied territories told me two months ago. "And our objective is at all costs to prevent the Begin government from achieving new successes in its policy of creeping annexation."
In fact it is the Begin government that launched the offensive. Not only through the creeping settlements policy, but also by stepping up military and paramilitary repression. This repression involved systematic attacks against educational establishments (in particular the University of Bir Leit, the teachers college in Ramallah, the closing of Abou Dies College of Sciences, etc.), threats against the political leaders and the expulsion decree against Nablus mayor Bassam Shaka, and particularly repeated attacks by the Gush Emunim settlers who, with the tacit support of the military government and armed by it, have become an autonomous police force in those occupied territories.
Those settlers go out on Arab-bashing expeditions; they organize punitive operations in neighborhoods, villages, or camps suspected of creating trouble; and, on several occasions, they have fired on Palestinians. A year ago in Halhul they shot two Palestinians to death.
All this strengthened the feeling within the Palestinian masses that they must put up fierce resistance to the occupation if they are to prevent the Likud autonomy plan-meaning the perpetutation of the occupation-from being applied.
Why Resistance Runs So Deep
Starting from the Begin government's offensive, a series of additional factors help explain why the Palestinian rebellion runs so deep and how it differs from the preceding wave of struggles in the occupied territories.
First is the existence of a local nationalist leadership which, while supporting the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and seeing itself as a transmission belt between the PLO leadership and the Palestinian masses, has taken on the task of coordinating the resistance activities of the Palestinian population and unifying the various organizations and institutions against the Zionist authorities and against the plan for autonomous administration.
For example in recent months a Committee of National Guidance was set up, bringing together representatives of most of the municipalities, clandestine political organizations, and professional, tradeunion, and university associations.
This committee called the various general strikes and street demonstrations over the past year. The whole population looks to this committee as its leadership, and the committee has a degree of prestige that is unprecendented in the history of the occupied West Bank. But most of all it provides, for the first time, a framework for uniting the struggles that have, until very recently, remained unconnected.
In the second place there is a new generation of militants who have no illusions about the temporary character of the Israeli occupation. These militants have had no experience with the situation prior to the Israeli occupation, and they reached political maturity at a time when the Palestinian national struggle and some of its gains were already an established fact.
But even more important, this new generation knows the Zionist occupation from close up and therefore the Zionist state holds no mystery for them. After thirteen years of occupation, the Palestinians know Israel. They know its brutality and its expansionism. But they also know its weaknesses-its international isolation and internal tensions.
This new consciousness of being part of a conflict that is not simply a military confrontation between one of the best armies in the world and the Palestinian commandos, but that instead involves various social forces on the local, regional, and international level, provides a much more realistic framework for the struggles carried out by the occupied population.
Thirdly, the new wave of struggles bases itself on several victories in previous struggles, victories that have shown the limitations of the Begin government's plans and its weaknesses.
will give you a week by week analysis of the most important world events.
Zionist settlement of Kiryat Arba (top) overlooks Arab city of Hebron. Acceleration of Zionist colonization program has helped spark rebellion on West Bank.
These victories include the Israeli Supreme Court's decision to dismantle the settlement at Elon Moreh, the annulment of the expulsion decree against Nablus mayor Bassam Shaka, the reopening of the university of Bir Zeit, and the government's inability to outlaw the Committee of National Guidance. These have been correctly seen as proof that it is possible to deal blows to the occupation forces and to turn an offensive into a debacle.
The Iron Fist Policy
Although the Israeli government tried to use the Hebron commando operation to justify tightened repression, it did not have much success in this regard. Today it is rather common knowledge that the decision to apply the so-called "iron fist" policy was made several days before the commando operation.
That operation was only used as a pretext for applying the new policy in a spectacular and intransigent manner. In the middle of the night the mayor of Hebron, Fahad Kawasmeh; the mayor of Halhul, Muhammed Milhem; and Hebron religious leader Sheikh Tamimi were expelled, in total violation of even the reactionary laws in force in the occupied territories. A dozen houses were blown up near the scene of the commando operation, and finally a total curfew was imposed on the city of Hebron.
Immediately after that, the supposed leaders of the Committee of National Guidance were threatened with expulsion unless they immediately ceased their political activities. The mayor of Beituniya was arrested for having supposedly incited a strike in solidarity with the people of Hebron.
A curfew was imposed on several refugee camps and in a Bethlehem neighborhood where some incidents had taken place. Several thousand people-demonstrators and passers-by alike-were arrested in Hebron, Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Bira.
Two families were deported from Beit Sa'hour and the Balata camp when one of their children was suspected of having thrown stones at a military vehicle. And of course Arab-bashing and personal attacks took place throughout the occupied territories.
Obviously Hebron, a city that had until very recently remained rather quiet, has been hit hardest by the iron fist. During the curfew, which lasted more than two weeks, soldiers had orders to terrorize the population. Several hundred houses were searched, with all that implies in the context of a policy of terror against the population. Nearly 2,000 people were arrested, meaning they were beaten up. Thousands of shots were fired, and crops were ravaged.
In addition there were punitive operations by the Kiryat Arba settlers, who for weeks have been specializing in breaking car and apartment windows.
In recent weeks collective punishment has become the rule. When a child is suspected of having thrown rocks, the home of the child's parents is blown up. When a refugee camp is a little too noisy, a curfew is imposed. When shopkeepers go on strike, members of the municipal coun cil are held responsible, arrested, and threatened with expulsion.
Along with the official measures, the Gush Emunim settlers and Gen. Sharon's Green Patrol (an official body of the Ministry of Agriculture designed to "protect" public lands from the Arabs) have also decided to apply their own "iron fist" policy. They did not wait for the pretext of the Hebron operation.
On April 24 a group of Gush Emunim settlers broke hundreds of car and apartment windows in the city of Ramallah. Several days later Rabbi Meir Kahane and several dozen supporters staged an armed march through Ramallah, having informed the military authorities in advance. They demonstrated in front of the city hall chanting "Palestine does not exist! Arabs out!"
A week later several kilos of explosives were found in one of the Gush Emunim centers in Jerusalem. The explosives were to be used in a reprisal against the Hebron operation.
The Green Patrol has distinguished itself by destroying vineyards (in Artas) and other crops (in Dura and Idna), using defoliants or pulling up the plants.
Limits on the Iron Fist Policy
Judging by the response that the various initiatives of the Begin government and the Gush Emunim settlers provoked, even before the "iron fist" became official policy, it is quite unlikely that intensified repression can provide a lasting solution to the situation on the West Bank. Three weeks after the leaders from the Hebron region were expelled, the occupied territories did not at all seem to be on the road to "pacification."
Despite the threats against the mayors and the attempts to open shuttered stores by force, despite the collective punishments, not a day goes by without molotov cocktails being thrown at military vehicles, including one thrown at the vehicle of one of the military governors.
The Palestinian population is very conscious of the pressures being brought to bear on the Begin government and how those pressures make it harder for the government to carry out a superrepressive policy.
In fact, Israel is in the midst of negotiations with Egypt regarding the future status of the occupied territories. For Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat, it is absolutely essential that these negotiations move forward in order to prove that he never sought to reach a separate peace with Israel and that Israel is fully obliged to negotiate a withdrawal from the occupied territories.
At stake in the negotiations on the autonomy plan is not simply Sadat's credibility. What is fundamentally at stake is the chance for a negotiated solution in the Middle East, which is the absolute prerequisite for stabilization of the imperialist order in that region.
Any intensification of the repression, any new settlements-in a word, any Israeli attempt to strengthen the occupation-is also a step away from consolidating the Camp David accords, upon which American imperialism at least has staked its cards.
That is precisely why American impe rialism has recently joined with the European bourgeoisies in criticizing certain "excesses" in the Begin government's policies. The European bourgeoisies have long been aware that imperialist interests require reining in the Israeli government's annexationist policy.
The United Nations Security Council's adoption of a series of resolutions condemning Israel for the expulsion of the Palestinian leaders and for establishing settlements reflects the Carter administration's embarrassment and nervousness over the Begin government's policy.
But even within Israel the Begin government's policy is running up against increasing opposition. Within the Zionist establishment itself there are many voices demanding a radical change in the occupation policy, and even some voicing total rejection of it. "There path is not ours" asserts a statement published in all the newspapers, signed by two hundred central figures in Israeli politics, including several generals, a number of Labor deputies, industrialists, and some former cabinet ministers.
The previously cited editorial in the daily Haaretz was entitled "The Damned Occupation." That newspaper of the big Zionist bourgeoisie went so far as to admit that "for a number of years we hoped we could escape the infernal logic of every occupation, a logic that people larger and stronger than us have not been able to escape.... But, inspite of ourselves, reality haunts us and we must now pay the price. The reality is that on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip one people is trying to dominate another people against their will. ... Despite ourselves, we have been led to this situation since the Six Day War.
But the truth is that a number of us have come to like this post-1967 situation and have the illusion that it can last, perhaps even forever. Day by day it is becoming increasingly obvious that that is an illusion."
And several days later, after the Hebron operation and the decision to apply an iron fist in the occupied territories, the same Haaretz published an editorial that said: "It would be nice if one could be convinced that the expulsion of three leaders in the Hebron region, the dynamiting and expropriation of several houses in Hebron, and the tightening of measures against all the mayors on the West Bank would lead to order. Unhappily it is doubtful that such measures ... will put an end to the stirrings taking place within the Arab population east of the Green Line. Those who think that it is enough to repress 'disturbances'
are mistaken. All the
"iron fist' measures will only increase the Arabs' resentment against us, and the plan to expropriate 120,000 dunums [30,000 acres] of private lands to build new settlements and to enlarge those that already exist, can only pour oil on the fire."
Polarization in Israel
The tensions created by the impact of events on the West Bank have not been restricted to the ruling class and the coalition in power. Within the general population of Israel itself we see a growing polarization.
The sentiment described by the Haaretz editorial is becoming more and more widespread, and is expressed by an increase in demonstrations in solidarity with the struggle of the Palestinian people. Even the left Zionist organizations, which during the thirteen years of occupation have maintained a wait-and-see, passive attitude regarding solidarity tasks, today feel they must mobilize to put an end to the Begin government's suicidal policies.
Demonstrations are increasing, although they still remain small and in most cases divided. The central slogan of various solidarity actions has become "Down With the Occupation!" For twelve years that slogan has remained restricted to anti-Zionist groups. For the first time, we have even seen an attempt to set up a united committee against the occupation, in which left Zionists and anti-Zionists work together.
Among the many activities protesting the expulsions of the Palestinian leaders from the Hebron region, we should particularly mention the demonstration on the Allenby Bridge (which links the West Bank and Jordan) that was jointly organized by Israeli organizations, including Zionist organizations, Palestinian organizations, and the deported leaders, who demonstrated at the same time a few dozen yards away on the other side of the border.
An equally significant phenomenon is the unrest that the present policy is causing within the army itself. While refusal to serve in the occupied territories remains the exception, it by no means runs up against general hostility, and in recent weeks, with the "iron fist" policy, this unrest has even been seen among the occupation forces. On several occasions, for example, the Israeli press reported that soldiers and officers refused to follow orders from their superiors.
Uri Avneri, a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament) distributed a report to Knesset members in which soldiersyoung recruits with no history of political activity-stated they were shocked by the orders they received (indiscriminate beating of all those questioned, wrecking furniture, terrorizing •..). Reserve General Mati Peled went so far as to predict that the time is drawing near when the military authorities will face mass refusal to carry out the iron fist policy.
Within the Palestinian population living inside the 1948 borders of Israel, there have been a number of demonstrations in solidarity with the brothers in the occupied territories, despite the passivity of the Communist Party. In several villages painted slogans and posters have appeared on walls, and meetings of several hundred people each have been organized.
On May Day a march called by anti- Zionist organizations drew more than 2,000 demonstrators in the village of Kabul in Galilee. Their slogans focused on denunciations of the repression in the occupied territories. The militant spirit and slogans territories. The militant spirit and slogans of this demonstration were in sharp contrast to the atmosphere at the several parades that the CP, despite itself and in contrast to previous years, felt compelled to organize in some Arab localities.
The universities have once again become arenas of ongoing mobilization against the occupation. There are one or two demonstrations each week in the three most important universities in Israel, generally organized by the Arab Student Unions and the leftist organizations that are active on campus.
The universities are also where one best sees the polarization that is taking place. Increasingly, demonstrations by Arab students are being physically attacked by farright groups demanding the deportation of Arab students and even the whole Arab population.
Petitions circulate calling for the outlawing of Arab Student Unions. Sometimes the far-right groups use weapons in going after those who dare to express their solidarity with the struggle of the Palestinian people.
The Gush Emunim settlers are not remaining passive in the face of the present situation. Rather they are increasing the pressure on the government to step up its pace in settling the West Bank and annexing those territories to Israel. After a more than one-month long hunger strike by leaders of the settlements, the government
Carter has criticized Begin's 'excesses' because he fears Zionist regime may upset Camp David framework.
set up a commission to develop a plan for expropriating an additional 30,000 acres of land and to change the legal status of the settlements. The settlements are still formally under the sway of Jordanian law, which remains in effect on the West Bank.
Along with various demonstrations, the far right continues to arm itself and speaks more and more openly about its sacred duty to "maintain order" in the occupied territories and to use any and all means to prevent the redivision of the "holy land."
They know that as long as Begin is in power their interests will be safeguarded. What they worry about is preparing for the future and preventing at all cost any change whatsoever in the status of the West Bank if the "defeatists" return to power.
Economic Costs of the Occupation Policy
It is not only the most politicized elements of Israeli society who are concerned with the latest developments in the occupied territories. One of the most significant and deepgoing changes in the political situation in Israel regards the attitude of the Israeli masses, and particularly the working class, toward the Begin government's policy of settlement and annexation.
In a diffuse way, although it is becoming less and less diffuse, the Israeli working masses are beginning to understand that it is impossible to separate the catastrophic economic situation from the present government's policies as a whole.
Without a shadow of a doubt the economic situation is catastrophic. The balance of payments deficit has reached $4.6 billion, the total government debt (foreign and domestic) is some $34 billion, of which $19 billion is foreign debts. In the wake of a "radical" policy of fighting inflation (which last year was 120%), inflation is now running at an annual rate of 140%, with prices rising 10.2% in the month of April alone.
These few figures confirm that the Israeli economy is on the verge of collapse, and they explain why panic reigns in Israeli financial circles. The economic measures taken by the new minister of finance, Yigal Horovitz, had to be radical if they were to refloat the Israeli economy. And they certainly were radical for the working class. Subsidies were eliminated on basic necessities, which caused price rises amounting to an average of 240% over two years on milk and milk products, eggs, chicken, gasoline, transportation, water, and electricity. The cost of bread, which rose 50% in a year, will now rise another 100%.
The public services budgets (health, social security, housing, education) have been reduced an average of 6%, meaning not simply a massive reduction in those services, but also, for the first time since 1967, a decline in the number of publicservice jobs.
The decline in the workers' purchasing power, together with the reduction in government credit and subsidies to industrial companies, led to a shrinkage of the domestic market, and therefore to a decline in jobs in the industrial sector.
This means that unemployment is a reality in Israel. It is estimated that by the end of 1980 there will be 80,000 people jobless, which is close to 7% of the economically active population. For Israel 7% is a lot, particularly since this means that in the immigrant towns, where the least profitable factories are located, it can mean that as much as 25% of the local active population is unemployed.
So in the space of two years the Israeli workers have been simultaneously confronted with unemployment, reduced publie services, and an average drop of nearly 10% in purchasing power.
Moreover, the economic situation continues to get worse, and at an accelerating pace. The reasons for this are obvious. Yigal Horovitz's "radical methods" of dealing with problems do not touch the causes for the deficit in the budget or inflation.
The real causes are found in the military expenditures and the expenses linked to the establishment of new settlements. Yet the only area of the budget that rose this year is defense (more than 12%), which now represents 25% of the Gross National Product and nearly one-third of the national budget.
When you add to this those parts of the budget dealing with the settlements, the areas linked to military expenditures, and the payment on foreign and domestic debt, we arrive at the approximate figure of 260 billion Israeli pounds, which is two-thirds of the national budget and nearly half the Gross National Product.
In addition to being anti-working-class and reactionary, the attempts to resolve the economic crisis by reducing public expenditures and cutting the purchasing power of the workers are completely inef fectual. It is no longer only the anti- Zionists who point out this fact. Amnon Gafni, the governor-general of the Bank of Israel, wrote in the April 4, 1980 Ma'ariu that "Israel is staggering under a heavy burden that is expressed:
"a. through orienting a major portion of our national product toward military expenditures,
"b. through an enormous foreign debt for financing arms purchases." Gafni noted that "while military imports during the 1960s amounted to $200 million per year, since 1973 they have totaled $1.5 billion per year."
Regarding domestic military expenditures, Gafni wrote that "in the 1960s they represented 5% to 6% of the National Product; after the 1967 war they rose to 10% to 12%, and after the October war they
... It is rose to between 15% and 18%.
true," Gafni adds, "that the United States helps us finance these purchases. But half of these expenditures are added to our debts, on which the interest alone comes to $1.5 billion per year."
Amnon Gafni's solution is simple: "It is a national necessity of primary importance to massively limit military expenditures. ... It is urgent to understand that security is not limited to strengthening the army, but also involves the morale of the the cultural level, society's population, health....
And Gafni goes on to propose reducing military expenditures to 10% of the National Product, which would mean a reduction of 60%!
Along the same lines, Professor Assaf Razine-the former adviser to the Likud minister of finances and ex-director of the Economic Planning Commission-asserts:
"In my view [Finance Minister] Horovitz goes too far in reducing subsidies and social services, while at the same time military expenditures have grown, as have expenditures linked to construction and implantation in the occupied territories. As a result there is a deformation in the distribution of national resources, which works to the detriment of certain social groups, and at the same time there is an acceleration in the inflationary process due to a rise in
[Yedioth spending..
government A'haronoth, May 20, 1980.]
To the question "can't something be done?" Professor Razine answers: "Oh yes, we could do a lot, if we are ready to radically change the entire political and economic conception. .... In the economic sphere, a radical reduction in military expenditures, a halt to expenditures for establishing settlements. ... In the political sphere, we should rapidly achieve a solution to the problem of the occupied territories, through some sort of agreement that would permit us to receive massive financial aid from both the Jewish people in the U.S. and the U.S. government." Reaction of Israeli Masses
The workers are becoming increasingly conscious of this same point that the central figures of the Zionist apparatus like Amnon Gafni and Assaf Razine are beginning to understand. Because the idea of national interest is still deeply rooted in the workers' consciousness, they would be quite ready to make big sacrifices if they felt that the burden was being shared by everyone and that their efforts would actually make it possible to refloat the economy.
But what is happening is that the bourgeoisie is getting richer, particularly as a result of the economic liberalization and the treasury bonds that are indexed to inflation. The workers see that the inflation is rising higher and higher, and the balance of payments deficit and the budgetary deficits are growing before their very eyes.
At this stage the workers have gone beyond simply questioning the economic policy. Now they are questioning the Begin government itself and its overall policy. And we are now seeing the beginning of a qualitatively new phenomenon: the broad masses are conscious that the conditions of life and work are directly linked to the Zionist state's overall policy regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict.
The slogan "Money for the poor neighborhoods, not for the settlements" is no longer just used among the anti-Zionists. Tens of thousands of workers and residents of the shantytowns have also taken up that cry in recent months.
The Begin government has not bothered to hide its priorities. While maintaining that it would solve the housing question in the poorer neighborhoods—which is one of the most acute social problems in Israelthe government divided up the construction budget as follows: 5 billion pounds for construction in the occupied territories (which involves at most several thousand people); compared to 1.2 billion pounds for low cost housing for young couples and large families (which involves more than 100,000 people).
This sense of being fed up with this government has not yet provoked a massive and united response by the workers. Struggles have remained isolated and limited, involving either relatively privileged sectors (teachers, nurses, social workers, El Al technicians, workers at the electric company and the banks, etc.), or those who had nothing left to lose (workers in the textile industry where more than twenty factories have either shut down already or are on the verge of closing). In most cases these defensive struggles have suffered partial or total defeats.
The relative passivity of the industrial workers stems in part from the fear of unemployment and in part from the feeling that in any event the Likud government will soon be out of office and then people can begin to think about how to solve the problems.
But more than anything else, the absence of a general counteroffensive by the workers is due to the absence of workingclass organizations that can provide a framework for such a struggle.
The Histadrut, as an organ of the colonial state's apparatus, is as frightened as the government is of any form of workingorganization and working-class class struggle. The dynamic of such a struggle would necessarily run counter to the idea of national unity and the defense of the national interest. Therefore the Histadrut is content to exert pressure on the government to be allowed to participate in making economic and social decisions.
The Histadrut leadership is, however, being pushed to increase its pressure on the government by two things: the general sentiment that the present policy is leading the Zionist state to catastrophe; and by the Histadrut's own fear of being bypassed. One worrisome sign for the Histadrut leaders in this regard was the establishment of a body to coordinate twelve workers committees representing the strongest sectors of the Israeli working class.
That's why this year, after more than ten years of boycott, the Histadrut decided to organize a mass demonstration against the government's policy on May 1. To the surprise of everyone, including the Histadrut bureaucrats, nearly 150,000 workers mobilized on that day, in spite of a vicious right-wing Zionist campaign arguing that "May Day is the holiday of the Russians and the Arabs, the enemies of Israel."
The Histadrut was able to retain complete control over the demonstration, the biggest one to take place in Israel since the June 1967 war. Slogans focused on defense of the national economy, on safeguarding the state, on defense of true national unity, on everyone making an effort to resolve the state's problems.
The Internationale was never sung once on the demonstration, while patriotic songs were heard throughout the day.
Nonetheless, this demonstration cannot be seen simply as a Histadrut operation, even though it remained within the framework that the Histadrut had chosen. For the workers who participated, it was a demonstration of strength against the Likud and in defense of their standard of living. In many of the contingents there were spontaneous slogans such as "Down with Begin!" "Bread and Jobs," "Money for Low-Cost Housing, not for Settlements," and "Horovitz, Resign."
What was missing was an organizational framework that could organize these spontaneous responses, going beyond the limits set by the Histadrut, and provide a class-struggle response.
The Governmental Crisis
The Begin government's days are numbered. There is total discontent among the people and the polls indicate that for the irst time in thirty years the Labor Party could win an absolute majority of seats in the Knesset. This does not, however, mean that the Israeli masses now have confidence in the Laborites' ability to resolve the structural problems of the state of Israel. It simply means that they feel that nothing could be worse than the Likud and that they must at all costs get rid of Begin.
This isolation from the population, the impasse in the negotiations with Egypt and the tensions with the U.S. which that created, and the dimensions of the economic crisis are causing a polarization in the ruling class.
On one side is Begin, Sharon, and the majority of the Herut faction in the Likud, who have chosen the policy of resolutely plowing ahead: intensifying the settlement process in the occupied territories and increasing the repression, including the possibility of cutting back on the civil liberties of Israel's Jewish society. This policy implies not only pushing ahead with the anti-working-class offensive, but also growing militarization of society as a whole, and, in the end, a new military adventure.
As we have shown, this policy is run-
090 PUDU
0190 пстл
1o 30
ning up against more and more massive resistance even within the leading Zionist circles, including within the coalition now in power.
The most "realistic" people in the government have quit. Foreign Affairs Minister Moshe Dayan was replaced by a former leader of the Stern Gang who is opposed to the Camp David accords. The majority of the deputies of General Yadin's party quit the coalition. A large minority of the liberal Likud deputies do not hide their desire to establish an alliance with the Laborites.
And now Minister of Defense Ezer Weizman has resigned, officially over differences on the military budget, but actually because he no longer feels that the Sharon- Begin-National Religious Party team is capable of leading.
This government has, in fact, become the Gush Emunim government. Its central objective is accelerated settlement of the occupied territories, and to achieve that goal it is willing to jeopardize peace with Sadat, increase Israel's international isolation, and create tensions with the United States.
To achieve that goal it must militarize the entire society and radically reduce the standard of living and civil liberties of the workers. Not only is this a dangerous gamble, one that is far from being won, but it also runs a strong risk of being counterproductive.
For more than thirty years it was possible to maintain the "national unity" not only because the Israeli masses felt it was necessary to fight a common enemy, but also because they identified the Zionist state with their security and with the continuous improvement of their standard
1b05 31
POLICE
PEACE
nowu
POLK
Israelis demonstrate against settlements in 1978. Begin's policies are becoming more and more unpopular.
of living. They believed, obviously wrongly, that war was the only option, that it was imposed by the Arabs-that there really wasn't any choice and therefore that war was correct. That was the cement that held the idea of national unity together and was the basis of the Zionist state's strength.
Two-and-one-half years of the Begin government have made it possible to constantly speed up the development of a new consciousness among the Israeli masses. People increasingly see the war, the occupation, and the exacerbation of the Israeli- Arab conflict as what they really were: a deliberate decision by the Zionist state itself, for which the Jewish working masses have been called upon to pay an increasingly heavy price.
A Class Response to the Crisis of the Zionist State
A majority of the Israeli bourgeoisie wants to get rid of the Begin-Gush Emunim government and replace it with a new Labor government in order to prevent the shattering of the "sacred union" and the crumbling of the ideological cement.
Behind the desire to bring the Labor Party back into power is the idea that it would be better to make limited concessions regarding the dream of Jewish settlement of all of Palestine than to apply an all or nothing policy that threatens to destabilize the Zionist state, increase its international isolation, and spur the "Arabization" of the Jewish society.
Unhappily for the Zionist leadership, however, the present crisis of the state of Israel is not solely the result of the all or nothing policy of the Gush Emunim fanatics. Rather the crisis reflects the new political relationship of forces on the re gional and international level. It is a reflection of the increased strength of the anti-imperialist movement in western Asia as a whole, the victory of the Iranian revolution, and the growth of the Palestinian nationalist movement. At the heart of the crisis and growing isolation of the Zionist state is the growth of the antiimperialist struggle in the Arab region.
In this sense, while the more moderate Zionists are correct in saying that Begin's policy of plunging ahead is suicidal for the Zionist state, Begin is also quite correct when he says that a more moderate policy in the occupied territories, and especially withdrawal from those territories, would only strengthen the morale of the Palestinian masses and their struggle against Zionism.
Begin is also correct when he tells Carter that since the fall of the shah, Israel is now the only relatively stable element defending imperialist interests in the Middie East and that any weakening of the state of Israel would only strengthen the Arab anti-imperialist movement.
The state of Israel is in a blind alley, along with American imperialism, although U.S. imperialism has infinitely greater maneuvering room than its Israeli outpost in the Middle East has.
The question for the Israeli workers is to begin to understand that the Zionist state's blind alley need not mean that the Jewish workers are in a blind alley, that the crisis of the state is not necessarily a crisis for its inhabitants.
The Israeli workers, however, face some heavy handicaps in reaching this understanding. These handicaps include more than thirty years of multi-class "national unity," the absence of structures for independent working-class organization, the dominant racist ideology, and the still strong identification of the security of the workers with the security of the Zionist state.
It will take time to overcome these handicaps, through developing every partial struggle, every form of independent organization, so that the workers objectively oppose the priorities of the Zionist state, and on that basis, develop a class consciousness on the ruins of the national unity.
In the context of their struggles and their independent organization, the Jewish workers will progressively draw closer to the Palestinian masses in their struggle for national liberation. This would then make it possible for the Palestinian national liberation struggle to develop a proletarian perspective, which is the only thing that can offer Jewish workers a credible alternative to Zionism.
But for this to happen the Israeli work-
Don't miss a single issue
Press/Inprecor! Send for
• Enclosed is $35 for a one-year ers must begin to think and react in class terms, meaning they must break with the idea of national unity. Today, more than fera, th wentral is este needed before the ever, the central question posed before the themselves independently from the Zionist state and to begin to react as a class, to develop an alternative program of priorities and to establish the means to impose that program.
Therefore revolutionary anti-Zionists in Israel have multifaceted, but basically linked, tasks. These tasks are to help build the Palestinian struggle for national emancipation and to orient it toward a proletarian perspective; to expand every form of struggle and organization by the Jewish workers that objectively weakens the national unity idea and makes it possible for the workers to move forward along the road of organizing themselves as an independent class force; and to expand solidarity with the Palestinian struggle within the Jewish population, particularly among Jewish youth, with the aim of showing that the interests of the Jewish masses and Arab masses involve a common struggle against the national oppression of the Palestinian people.
An anti-Zionist united front of the Jewish and Arab masses will be built from the fusion of these different struggles that reflect varied levels of consciousness. Only such a united front can put an end to Zionist oppression and guarantee the Palestinian masses their national rights. And only such a united front can guarantee the Jewish masses peace, security, and a normal life within the Arab world.
of Intercontinental your subscription now!
subscription.
Enclosed is $17.50 for a six-month subscription. • Enclosed is $8.75 for a three-month subscription.
Send me the special supplement containing the documents and reports of the 1979 World Congress of the Fourth International. The supplement is free with a one-year subscription; $2.50 with a sixmonth subscription; and $3.95 with a three-month subscription. • Please send me information about airmail and first-class rates. Name Address City/State/Zip Country Make checks payable to Intercontinental Press 410 West Street New York, N.Y. 10014 U.S.A.