The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page
[Resolution of the Fourth Internationalist Caucus in the National Committee, submitted to the December 4-8, 1982, plenum]
The Israeli invasion of Lebanon brings into bold relief all of the tendencies and contradictions in the Middle East today. It demonstrates once again, more clearly than ever before, that no solution to the crisis in the region can be offered by any bourgeois political force, whether it makes its headquarters in Tel Aviv, the Arab countries, Washington, or some other imperialist capital. Nor is there any solution from a narrow, petty-bourgeois, Arab, or Palestinian nationalist point of view. The only hope for a lasting solution to this decades-long conflict lies with the socialist revolution.
For Israel and the Zionists, this war exposes the complete utopianism of any hoped-for military solution to its conflict with the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. Each new victory, by creating new refugees and new occupied territories, simply paves the way for still bigger wars to come. Yet the military approach is the only option open to a state which is based on the uprooting and expulsion of an entire population.
The Arab governments were once again shown by this war to be completely impotent both politically and militarily. The overriding consideration in their policy is to preserve the privileged positions of the Arab ruling classes. They would like nothing better than to find an accord with the status quo which will defuse the conflict with Israel. But the need to appear as opponents of Zionism in the eyes of the Arab masses requires them to take a militant stance which, though it rarely goes much beyond words, still makes an actual accommodation with Tel Aviv extremely difficult.
The differences on this score between the so-called “radical” Arab regimes and those that are considered more conservative turned out to be little more than rhetoric. Syria, Iraq, and Libya did nothing substantial to help the Palestinians in Lebanon, and did not seriously distinguish themselves from Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. (The USSR also demonstrated that it was unconcerned about the fate of the Palestinians and would do nothing which might bring it into a conflict with the imperialists' plans for the region.)
Imperialism too, like the Arab regimes, would like to defuse the tinderbox in the Middle East—which threatens its interests in a wide variety of ways—and reach an accord with the Arab states. But its only really dependable, stable ally in the region is the Israeli regime, and in the last analysis it must defend the Zionist state no matter what tactical differences might develop with its ally over the best way to achieve a demobilization of the Arab masses (through direct military confrontation or through partial concessions). This position of the imperialist powers, Washington in particular, as staunch allies of Israel makes it difficult for them to adopt a pose of impartial mediators—a pose which under different circumstances would aid the Arab regimes in reaching an accommodation with Israel.
None of the “peace plans” which have been or will be proposed by any of these forces can hope to resolve the present conflict, because they do not resolve the basic underlying problem—the displacement and oppression of the Palestinian masses by Zionism. The Arab regimes at the recent Fez conference posed the solution of the “mini-state” in the occupied territories. For them, the acceptance of this proposal by Israel would open the door for an accommodation by providing a fig-leaf concession toward Palestinian self-determination. But in reality, as long as the state of Israel continues to exist, any such solution as envisioned by the Arab governments would be a complete mockery of self-determination, and would only lay the basis for bigger explosions in the years ahead. The recently proposed Reagan plan provides even less. His idea of self-determination requires that the Palestinians “determine” that they want to live under the tutelage of King Hussein. And as for the government of Israel, even that little concession is too much. The Zionist “peace plan” requires the renunciation by the Palestinians of any desire for even a square foot of their homeland. This is purely and simply a plan for continued wars.
Of course, the Palestinians show no signs of capitulating to the Israelis' demands. The strength of their resistance to Zionism over the course of decades has been an inspiration and an example to all freedom fighters around the world. Nevertheless, the Palestinian movement faces a political crisis which has reached a new stage with the most recent war. The question that must be answered is: What strategy should be followed in order to create the possibility of victory in their struggle? Can the PLO limit itself to a purely nationalist perspective which attempts to unite all Palestinians and all Arabs, regardless of social class, in a common struggle against the Zionist regime? Or is it necessary to combine the national struggle with a perspective for socialist revolution, a perspective which will unite the working class and oppressed of the region? Is there any solution to the national question outside of this framework?
Up to now, Arafat and the main leadership of the PLO have pursued a purely nationalist perspective. And it is this class-collaborationist policy that has brought the PLO fighters to their current impasse and crisis of perspective. The path has led inexorably from Jordan in 1970, when the PLO failed to rally the masses for the overthrow of King Hussein and thereby gave him an opportunity to expel them from the country; to the Lebanese civil war in 1975-76, when the PLO again failed to present a perspective for state power to be seized by the revolutionary forces and so ended up reconciling themselves to the bourgeois Sarkis government; to the most recent events in Lebanon. Time after time the perspective of appealing to the Arab monarchs and bourgeoisies for a united front against Zionism has led only to bloody defeats. The Arab ruling classes realize only too well that the mobilization of the Arab masses, which a real struggle against Zionism will require, will be impossible for them to control. There is nothing that they fear more than such a mobilization.
The price which the Palestinians will pay for maintaining a perspective of alliance with the Arab governments can only be, in the short term, continued battles in a war where victory is impossible; and in the long run, the demobilization of their struggle. Ultimately such a course can only lead to reconciliation with Zionism and imperialism. The endorsement by Arafat of the peace proposals made at the Fez summit show the direction in which the main PLO leadership is moving. This plan is virtually identical to the Fahd plan presented by Saudi Arabia last year, and rejected by Arafat at that time as incompatible with Palestinian self-determination.
There is nothing wrong in principle with the possibility of a Palestinian mini-state. Under some circumstances such a state could serve as a step through which to advance the anti-Zionist struggle. But under the present circumstances of a serious military defeat for the PLO, and in the context of the diplomatic maneuvers of the Arab governments (which are pursuing their own narrow self-interest and not that of the Palestinians), the acceptance by Arafat of the mini-state plan can only be interpreted as a de facto step toward the recognition of the state of Israel, no matter which his subjective intentions might be.
The alternative to this course of subordination to the Arab governments is for the Palestinian resistance fighters to draw the lessons from their years of experience. Palestinian nationalism is a progressive and revolutionary force, but in order to be victorious that nationalism must develop a proletarian perspective. There can be no basic strategic plan based on a common front with the Arab states. The Palestinians must begin to see their national struggle as one component—the most militant and resolute component today—of a broader struggle for the socialist revolution in the Middle East. They must seek their main allies amongst the proletarian and semiproletarian forces both within the Arab countries and within the state of Israel itself. Only if the Palestinian movement resolutely seeks to participate in and advance the struggles of the workers and peasants of the Arab countries against the interests of the Arab ruling classes, at the same time as they continue their fight against the state of Israel, can a real fighting force with a chance of victory against Zionism be mobilized. This will require the development of a revolutionary Marxist vanguard within the Palestinian movement which can present it with a consistently proletarian program of struggle.
The consolidation of such a revolutionary Marxist tendency must be the conscious perspective of the international Trotskyist movement—the Fourth International. The questioning and reconsideration of past perspectives going on within the Palestinian resistance—and in the broader Arab world—in the wake of the Lebanese defeat provide an important opportunity. The bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements will be pushed to the right by these events, closer to an accommodation with Zionism. But others will be able to draw the correct lessons, and will be open to considering a revolutionary Marxist alternative.
A recognition of the role which can be played by the Jewish working class within Israel itself is a crucially important element in this political differentiation. The Israeli proletariat is one of the most significant potential supporters of the Palestinian movement. The Lebanese war and its aftermath have revealed the growing contradictions in Israeli society, a society whose stability depends on a class-collaborationist agreement based on reactionary nationalist ideology. Such a set-up is inherently unstable, and cannot help but break down as the pressures on it build up.
In the long run, no matter what their temporary successes might be, the Israeli bourgeoisie cannot succeed in suppressing the class contradictions of their society through the device of Jewish nationalism (which plays a completely reactionary role in the Middle East today by reinforcing the idea of a strictly Jewish state) or even by simple anti-Arab chauvinism. It is these class contradictions that will force the Israeli masses to realize that the real danger to their security is at home; that this threat doesn't come from the reasonable and just demands of the Palestinians. Only a proletarian perspective on the part of the Palestinian fighters will be able to take full advantage of these class differentiations within Israel itself.
The slogan of a “democratic secular Palestine,” which has been and remains the clear demand of the Palestinian movement, lays the firmest possible foundation for this alliance between Israeli worker and Palestinian freedom fighter. It makes clear that self-determination for the Palestinian people is not predicated on the expulsion or oppression of the Jewish population, as the Zionist propagandists charge, but simply on the dismantling of the current Israeli state—which must carry out, because of its Zionist perspectives, the expulsion of the Arab population and the suppression of its national and democratic rights.
Politically, the Lebanese war (and particularly the Sabra and Shatila massacres) stimulated the growth of a massive revulsion within Israel against the most brutal aspects of the Begin war policies. Although this opposition does not yet go beyond the framework of Zionism it nevertheless demonstrates the potential that exists for future changes in consciousness by the Jewish masses. And the Israeli aggression against Lebanon also stimulated a parallel political development throughout the world, increasing the prestige of the Palestinian resistance fighters and stimulating a new consciousness about the justice of their cause. It undermined the authority of the Israeli government even among its staunchest constituencies, such as the Jewish community in the United States.
But whatever the political results of the war, it must be acknowledged that the military results constitute a severe blow to the PLO and the Lebanese left. The main base of operations for the PLO was dismantled, and it was compelled to retreat, dispersing its forces among a number of Arab countries. Despite its heroic resistance, which held off the Israeli blitzkrieg longer than any Arab army had previously been able to do, the PLO in the end felt it necessary to accept the Habib plan, a plan that implemented the immediate war goals of Israel and imperialism. In addition to the dispersal of the Palestinian fighters, the basis was laid for the coming to power of a right-wing Christian government in Lebanon itself, with the consequent reign of terror against Palestinian refugees and Lebanese Moslems.
No one can dispute the right of the PLO to negotiate the best possible terms for its retreat. But this recognition does not in any way change the obligation of revolutionaries, particularly in the imperialist countries, to denounce the completely reactionary role played by Habib's shuttle diplomacy and by U.S., French, and Italian “peace-keeping” forces which supervised the PLO withdrawal. Our demand is not that the U.S. government play the role of mediator to assure the “peaceful” carrying out of its own solution, imposed on the Palestinians by the force of Israeli military power. Instead we demand that all support by our government to the Zionist war machine be halted, and that the Israelis be pressured to withdraw and allow the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples the right to determine their own destiny. The same approach holds for the second wave of U.S. “peace-keeping” forces which entered Lebanon after the PLO withdrawal from Beirut. The imperialist army does not and cannot play the role of “peace-keeper” in Beirut or anywhere else in the world. Revolutionary Marxists demand its immediate and unconditional withdrawal from all foreign territory.
The potential for developing a real movement around these simple demands in the United States has never been greater than it was during the siege of Beirut. Today there are still good opportunities. Trying to stimulate and help organize such a movement must be a conscious priority for our party. It is an elementary internationalist responsibility.
The fundamental political focus of this work will be around demands and slogans which have the potential for mobilizing the maximum number of working people in this country in actions that will objectively serve to advance the cause of Palestinian national liberation.The most important slogans from this point of view are “U.S. and Israeli troops out of Lebanon Now!” and “Halt U.S. Military Aid to Israel!” Other slogans should also be advanced which discuss the basic question of the right to self-determination for Palestine. Within the context of such a movement based on the democratic right to self-determination, revolutionary Marxists will present their own views on the need for a socialist revolution in the Middle East as the only real road to achieve this, as well as on the role a military victory for the PLO over the Israeli state can play to advance this process. However, we will oppose making agreement on these points a prerequisite for common action around opposition to the military policies of Washington and Tel Aviv.
In many parts of the country there are groups working to organize around Lebanon and the Palestinian question. These groups have different perspectives on how to proceed, and local party branches will have to assess the specific situation in each area, determining how we should intervene to advance our general goal of building the broadest possible movement in solidarity with the Palestinian people. The collective experiences of the branches in this work will lay the basis for the development of national perspectives in this area for the party as a whole.
The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page | Marxists’ Internet Archive