The Left and the Israeli/Palestine Wars

Review of Michael Fischbach, The Movement and the Middle East; How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Divided the American Left

by Wayne Price

A major issue motivating the U.S. left at this time is the Israeli/Palestine war, specifically Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza. Even the environmental-climate justice movement has been eclipsed for the time. There are other disasters in the world, such as in Sudan or Haiti, but the U.S.—our government—is not directly and immediately supporting the aggressors in those cases, financially, politically, and militarily. It is in Gaza.

It may be useful to compare the present-day conflict with the last period of U.S. radicalization and upheaval—the “sixties” (from the mid-fifties to the mid-seventies). The major issues of that period were Civil Rights/Black liberation and the U.S.-Vietnamese War. These two issues shook the country! There were also other concerns at this time and after, such as the women’s liberation movement, LGBTQ liberation, anti-nuclear power, some labor struggles, etc.

Michael Fischbach is focused on the conflict in that period between Israel and the Palestinian people and the Arabs in general. (There were two significant wars between Israel and Arabs in this period, in 1967 and 1973.) This was never the major issue on the left. But Fischbach maintains that it was a source of constant tension in the left movement, and was at least one of the reasons the movement eventually divided and petered out. It was “a major problem that bedeviled and ultimately weakened the American Left in the 1960s and1970s…which side, Israel or the Palestinians, deserved the support of left wing activists?” (Fischbach 2020; p.3)

Then, as now, a large proportion of the white left was composed of Jews. Just how large is never estimated, although one source is quoted as guessing 30% (1 to 2% of the U.S. is Jewish). To many Jews support for Israel was a part of their self-identity. An attack on Israel felt like an attack on their very selves. They had grown up thinking of Israel as a democratic and even socialist country. Other Jews, radicalized by the Vietnam-U.S. war, felt that Israel was part of the imperialist system. If anything, they felt that Jewish values required support for the underdog and oppressed. “The entire Left would feel the impact of this Jewish ‘civil war’.” (p. 6)

Fischbach’s book is extremely thorough and a bit academic; he rarely expresses his own political views. It is worth reading through to get a complete view of this issue in this period, which prepared the current period. (He briefly quotes two comments by me from an interview.)

Using Fischbach’s data, I would summarize left approaches to the sixties Mid-East conflict mainly into four types:

First, there was a strong tradition of left support for Israel. This was after World War II, when the left had joined in the fight against the anti-semitic Nazis, and after the extent of the Holocaust had been discovered. Israel had been founded, no longer a Zionist dream, and had to be related to, one way or another.

Stalin’s Russia had supported Israel’s establishment and sent arms through Czechoslovakia. This meant that Communist Parties everywhere—including the U.S.—had supported Israel (until the Soviet Union switched to the Arabs). This left a pro-Israel tradition among some Communists.

Finally, Israel had largely been founded by social democrats and even libertarian socialists. They set up an economy dominated by a Jewish union federation as well as building the famous democratic-communist kibbutzim (both being mostly closed to Palestinians). This was before today’s rightist-religious Zionists replaced the social democrats in the government.

In U.S. politics, the corporate rich and the political establishment are pro-Israel because it serves the interests of U.S. imperialism in the region. And there is a layer of wealthy Jews who also identify with Israel out of religious belief and personal loyalty. Among masses of Jewish people there is a belief that support for Israel is a part of their religion or at least their identity. They ignore that almost all religious Jewish trends had rejected Zionism before the Second World War. (So did almost all varieties of Jewish socialists.) Nor do they intend to settle in Israel, which was a central tenet of original Zionism. They insist that to be against Zionism, or even critical of Israel, is to be a Jew-hater. These pro-Israeli views put pressure on leftist Jews to not break with their families, communities, and identities.

Second, the anti-war movement and the Black liberation movement radicalized a great many young people. They came to reject liberalism and reformism. (Most of the Vietnam war was fought by more-or-less liberal Democratic presidents, while support for Civil Rights was at best wishy-washy by those Democratic administrations.) They came to see that the underlying enemy was capitalism, which, on a world scale, was imperialism. They identified with the oppressed peoples, the “wretched of the earth,” against the great powers, especially the U.S. government. Tens of thousands or more young adults, on campus and off, regarded themselves as “revolutionaries.” This frightened the masters of the status quo.

The far-left (to the left of the liberals and “democratic socialists”) was composed of Communists and various sorts of Maoists, Trotskyists, radical pacifists, and independent radicals. Unfortunately (in my opinion) there were few libertarian (autonomous) Marxists or revolutionary anarchists; most anarchists were among the pacifists. Yet these small numbers of extreme leftists had an influence far beyond their size. The passivity of the liberal Democrats and of the union leaders left the field open for more radical forces to play an outside—and essential—role in the anti-war movement in particular.

To many, it seemed obvious that the guerrilla war being waged by the Palestinians against the settler-colonialist state of Israel (which was backed by the U.S.) was another part of the world-wide revolutionary war against imperialism. It was another part of the struggle being waged in Vietnam and in the African-American communities of North America.

The radicals were right to become revolutionary. Unfortunately, their conception of revolution was learned from Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro. Also from the various Marxist-Leninist and nationalist groupings in the Middle East. What these various approaches to revolution had in common was their authoritarianism. Their goal was to overthrow the existing states and replace them with new ones—one-party dictatorships. None promoted democratic pluralism, decentralist federalism, or workers’ self-management.

Their idea of “socialism” (let alone “communism”) was a completely state-owned and managed economy. This is state-capitalism, and it always turned out to be inefficient, so they expanded market-based methods. They had no concept of worker-managed industries and cooperatives. Similarly, in the U.S. they had little conception of the anti-war movement reaching out to the working class majority, which came to dislike the war but remained alienated from the movement. (Fischbach does not make this criticism.)

Third, there were those then, as there are now, whose focus was getting the two peoples to live together. The Israeli Jews came to Palestine escaping the Holocaust and its aftermath. Whatever the goals of the Zionist leaders, these Jews were now there in Palestine, having become a Hebrew-speaking Israeli Jewish nation. Whatever Muslim fanatics might dream, the Israeli Jews are not leaving Palestine. And whatever Zionists may dream, the Palestinians are also not leaving. After 75 years of Zionist expansion, the Palestinians are still there. So the conclusion is the need for both people to agree to live together in whatever political system they can work out.

On its face this seems reasonable. It is also consistent with the socialist goal of Jewish and Arab workers uniting in self-interest and solidarity across national borders.

The problem is that the original settlement of the Jews, driving out the indigenous Palestinians, is not something in the distant past. It was still going on in the sixties and is still going on today. Right now the Israeli state is refusing to let Palestinian refugees return to their homes from before the war of 1948. Right now the Jewish settlers in the West Bank, with the military backing of the government, are driving Palestinians from their villages, orchards, and farms. And of course, right now the Israeli state is waging a war of extermination against the Palestinians of Gaza.

Palestinians, in their weakness and desperation, have also done things like terrorist bombings of civilians. But it is the Israeli Jews who are the settlers and occupiers; theirs is the guilt for the violence. They have pushed the oppressed to the wall.

Therefore the conflict cannot be treated as between two equal indigenous people. The Israeli Jews must be willing to give up their Zionism, their Jewish-supremacy in a “Jewish state,” in order to live together with the Palestinians. While some Palestinians are committed to a religious, all-Muslim, state in Palestine, most of the people have proven willing to live peacefully with the Jews, if given the chance. So far, they have not been given that chance.

Four, many of the movement’s leaders of the sixties were on the side of the Palestinians. They still did not want to raise that cause in the anti-war demonstrations. It was difficult at best to hold a broad coalition together merely to hold big demonstrations against the Vietnam war. Coalitions were rent by fights over whether to call for Negotiations, or for Immediate Withdrawal (“Out Now!”). Should they focus on building peaceful and legal mass marches? Or on nonviolent civil disobedience? Or on violent clashes with the police? Should Democratic politicians be invited to address the rallies? Or should they be banned? Should the struggle agains racism be a central part of demonstrations?

Anti-war coalitions were formed and broke up. Near the end there were two main groupings which regularly negotiated joint demonstrations. In this context, leaders (who themselves were pro-Palestinian) did not want another issue which might blow up their coalitions. The leaders of one major coalition, the then-Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, solved the problem by advocating “single issue” demonstrations. That is, the only issue was opposition to the war, and nothing else, not even anti-racism let alone Palestine. The other coalitions tended to just downplay the Palestinian cause.

Even Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., kept quiet about the Mid-East conflicts. He was personally sympathetic to the Palestinians, but he had lost many allies, white and Black, when he came out against the Vietnam-U.S. war. He did not wish to antagonize any more “friends.”

After the Sixties Movement

The “movement” dissolved in the late 1970s, even as other issues continued. These included the women’s movement, which if anything expanded, the anti-nuclear movement and the beginnings of the environmental struggle, the Nuclear Freeze, and efforts against other imperial wars in Central America and elsewhere.

But the main changes were the end of legal segregation in the South and the crushing of Black radicalism in the North by the police. Meanwhile the last U.S. troops left Vietnam in 1973. The leadership of the Black movement and much of the anti-war movement was channelled into the Democratic Party, there to be smothered and absorbed.

As Fischbach explains, with the decline of the anti-Vietnam war movement there was no longer a need to hold back criticism of Israel. This was one thing which permitted an increase in pro-Palestinian activity.

“Seeking Arab-Israeli peace, calling for a Palestinian state, and even holding Israel and the United States accountable for the lion’s share of the problems facing a peaceful resolution of the conflict were becoming mainstream ideas by the mid 1970s….” (p. 176) At least they were becoming mainstream in the broad left and peace movements. This became even more so after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1983.

But everyone did not feel that way. At a 1985 World Conference on Women in Nairobi, Betty Friedan told an Egyptian feminist, “Please do not bring up Palestine…this is a women’s conference, not a political conference.” (p. 198)

Writing in 2020, Fischbach concluded, “The more open way in which pro-Palestinian viewpoints can be discussed publicly today is a direct result of what transpired in the 1960s and 1970s. Support for the Palestinians has moved into the liberal-left mainstream.” He refers to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. “Advocacy of Palestinian rights has become a permanent part of the progressive American political landscape.” (p. 203)

However, “On the other hand, pro-Israeli forces have symbiotically become more organized and more powerful over the decades in their attempts to combat pro-Palestinian perspectives at colleges and universities.” (p. 203)

This is where matters stood when the Palestinian forces of Hamas and others crossed into Israel on Oct 7, 2023—followed by Israel’s massive assault on Gaza.

There was a major pro-Palestinian reaction among the youth on university campuses. They correctly put the attack by Hamas in the context of Israel’s violent occupation of Palestine and its displacement of the indigenous Arabs. Their solidarity with the oppressed Palestinians was noble and generous.

In the words of Judith Butler, “To be in solidarity with Palestine is not necessarily to agree with all the military actions of Hamas, but it is to stand with the people who are being targeted in a genocidal manner.” (Goodman 2023)

The protests do not identify with Hamas or other reactionary forces. Primarily they are supporting the Palestinians against the Zionist assault, and calling for an “immediate, permanent, ceasefire.” But the authoritarian tradition of the revolutionary left has left an unfortunate effect in not explicitly declaring for a radically-democratic, cooperative, pluralistic, society in Palestine—not Hamas’ goal. This would not counter the principle of national self-determination: it is up to the Palestinians to decide what sort of political, economic, and social arrangement they want. But that does not limit what U.S. protesters may say.

The Palestinian forces were justified in smashing through the militarized border and in attacking Israeli military camps and targets—even in taking over kibbutzim. Any oppressed nation would be justified in taking such actions. But the killing and kidnapping of unarmed and nonresistant civilians (even children) were atrocities and war crimes, which should be condemned. Excusing or even ignoring such actions is what led to support for Stalinism in past movements.

The right-wing attack on the pro-Palestinian demonstrations has been massive and vicious. Reactionary Republicans who cooperate with U.S. Nazis and white supremacists suddenly appeared as champions of the Jews. Jewish donors to universities denounced free speech when used by pro-Palestinians. Learned rabbis declared that without Israel there is no Judaism. Liberal university administrators wilted under the pressure. Showing utter spinelessness, they have denied free speech to the most nonviolent of protests, denied graduation to demonstrators, and called in the cops.

There has been a rise in Jew-hatred in our country (as well as in Islamaphobia). Some is apolitical. Most is on the right. But there is some on the left, which must be condemned. But the claim of the Zionists that anti-Zionism (or even criticism of Israel) is in itself anti-semitism, is a lie. One of the best refutations of this lie has been the relatively large participation of Jews in the pro-Palestinian movement. Many declare that Jewish ethics require their standing with the oppressed and exploited. (As a humanist Jew myself, I am proud of these activists.)

As I write, the U.S. is some months away from a presidential election.The election is remarkably irrelevant to the Gazan war. Democrats Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris backed Israel from the beginning and are still pouring military and financial aid into that state. They say they would prefer for the Israeli state to modulate its aggression, and even call for a ceasefire. But they do not put full U.S. leverage behind this preference. In this area as in every one, the Republican Donald Trump is no better and possibly worse. He is also committed to support of Israel as well as the Arab dictatorships.

The present crisis in the Mid-East and in the U.S. left is a continuation of the crisis of the sixties, which is well explained by Michael Fischbach. Some temporary agreement may be cobbled together to pause the killing and give some benefits to the Palestinians. That might be better than the war. But there will be no end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict so long as capitalism and its states continue to dominate the Mid-East and the world.

References

Fischbach, Michael R. (2020). The Movement and the Middle East; How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Divided the American Left.
Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

Goodman, Amy (8/26/2023). “Judith Butler on Hamas, Israel’s Collective Punishment of Gaza & Why Biden Must Push for Ceasefire.” Democracy Now! https://www.democracynow.org/2023/10/26/judith_butler_on_hamas_israels_…

*written for Anarcho-Syndicalist Review