Que se passe-t-il au Moyen-Orient ?

Dans le monde...

Message par Louis » 24 Mai 2004, 16:34

moi je crois qu'il faut deux états sur la base d'un accord entre les deux parties donc avec des compromis de part et d'autre, c'est inévitable ! mais il reste a inventer un israel débarassé du sionisme, ce qui n'est envisageable a mon avis que par des revolutionnaires communistes conséquents !
Louis
 
Message(s) : 0
Inscription : 15 Oct 2002, 09:33

Message par artza » 24 Mai 2004, 18:28

La discussion prend de plus en plus un drôle de tour. La destruction de l'état d'Israël (l'état d'Israël actuel) c'est une discussion entre "trotskystes", un objectif pour pro-palestiniens parisiens, des propos agités par les sionistes pour cristalliser autour de la politique de cet état la sympathie inconditionnelle et irréfléchie des milieux juifs ou des discours islamistes pour sortie de mosquée le vendredi, ce n'est pas la position d'Arafat et de l'Autorité palestinienne, quand au Hamas il sera prêt à traiter avec n'importe qui même le diable à la seule condition qu'on le laisse exercer sa dictature sur un coin de terre. De toutes façons l'expulsion de la population israëlienne ne semble pas à l'ordre du jour. LO discutait dans des textes republiés ici de la politique que des militants communistes internationalistes devraient mener en Palestine (Israël inclu) pour construire un avenir juste et viable pour les deux peuples et ouvrant la voie au socialisme. Wolf veut faire croire que quiquonque ne clame pas "destruction de l'état d'Israël" à tout propos et hors de propos est un suppot des colons. Le peuple palestinien opprimé et comment, dont les dirigeants sont peu dignes de son courage mérite d'autres défenseurs, les colons et Sharon ont peu à craindre de tels ennemis.
artza
 
Message(s) : 1740
Inscription : 22 Sep 2003, 08:22

Message par koshka17 » 24 Mai 2004, 22:01

Le camarade Com 71 a récemment publié une déclaration de la « Socialist Workers League » de Palestine (liée au Parti Ouvrier argentin) sans une critique ni même un commentaire. Un lecteur superficiel pourrait donc en conclure que Com est d’accord avec cette déclaration qui se conclut pourtant par « Pour une Palestine Unie et Démocratique dans un Moyen-Orient Socialiste », ce qui est contradictoire avec la politique de Lo, telle que développée ici par un certain nombre de militants ou de sympathisants.
Considérant que certains auraient pu en conclure à la proximité des positions de LO et de cette organisation, nous avons donc fait parvenir le texte de LO de 1973 cité plus haut à un de ces militants avec lequel nous avons des contacts.

Voici ses commentaires traduits par ma pomme :
« Le PO a publié récemment notre dernier tract : http://www.po.org.ar/english/400copiesGazaSWL-P.htm Vous pouvez le montrer aux gens de LO comme un exemple de notre position sur la situation présente et nos perspectives politiques.
Concernant leurs position, je pense qu’elles inconsciemment la pression de l’opinion publique impérialiste, naturellement pro-sioniste (…) Le mot clé qui manque dans leur document est COLONIALISME. On ne peut pas juste comparer l’Etat israelien à celui de France car l’Etat sioniste n’est pas un Etat bourgeois comme un autre. Historiquement, ce fut une tête de pont impérialiste au Moyen-Orient (..). Enfin il y a les subventions impérialistes massives – 3 à 5 milliards de /an seulement des USA. C’est pourquoi la lutte de classe des travailleurs juifs jour un rôle de second plan dans la vie politique locale, malgré le fait que l’an passé aie vu un nombre record de jours de grève. Bien sur, un combat commun des arabes et des travailleurs juifs brisant l’Etat sioniste serait l’idéal mais même ce démantèlement par les armées des pays arabes serait un grand progrès. En ce sens le nationalisme arabe est une force progressiste et n’est pas identique au nationalisme sioniste (rappelons nous du soutien de Trotsky au Brésil « fasciste » contre l‘Angleterre « démocratique »). Enfin le colonialisme explique pourquoi nous ne pouvons soutenir le « droit à l’autodétermination » des juifs de Palestine au prix des intérêts des masses arabes (…). C’est aussi le problème avec le mot d’ordre d’Etat binational, qui peut être interprété comme la reconnaissance partielle du nettoyage ethnique (…). Ce que je dis n’a rien de nouveau mais est la position traditionnelle de la IV° Internationale sur la Palestine. »


Nous ne savons pas si il existera des gens qui auront le front de suggérer que ce militant qui combat dans les conditions que chacun imagine est lui aussi un « raciste », un pro-palestinien parisien (comme dit Artza)… Quant aux militants de CpS il se retrouvent quant à eux très largement dans ce qu’explique ce camarade.
******
Le texte complet en anglish qui était accompagné de l’éditorial de novembre décembre 1947 de Fourth International :

The PO has recently posted our latest leaflet at: http://www.po.org.ar/english/400copiesGazaSWL-P.htm You can show them to LO as an example of our position on the current situation and of our political perspectives. Regarding their analysis, I think it unconsciously reflects the pressure of imperialist public opinion, which is naturally pro-Zionist (in France there is besides the pressure of "secularist" racism against the Arabs, born of colonialism in Algeria, Lebanon, etc. and more recently of the mass immigration and unemployment). The key word which is lacking in their document is colonialism. They cannot just compare the Israeli state with France because the Zionist state is not just another bourgeois state. It has historically been a colonialist beachhead in the Middle East - a "little loyal Jewish Ulster" in Palestine as the British called it. You have an ongoing ethnic cleansing and a massive land robbery, a regime of segregation, a population totally alienated from the surrounding 300 million Arab masses which considers itself a bulwark of European civilization vis-a-vis Muslim barbarism, etc. Last but not least, you have the massive imperialist subsidies - 3 to 5 billion dollars a year from the US only. That is why the class struggle of the Jewish workers plays such a secondary role in political life, though last year there was a record number of workdays lost in strikes. Of course a joint Arab-Jewish workers' struggle overthrowing the Zionist state would be the ideal scenario, but even a dismantling of the Zionist state through a military defeat at the hands of the Arab countries would be a great progress - if it enables the lifting of the blockade on the Palestinian towns and the return of the refugees for instance. In that sense Arab nationalism is a progressive historical force and not at all an identical twin of Zionist nationalism (remember Trotsky supporting even a fascist Brazil against a democratic UK). Finally, colonialism explains why you cannot support "the right to national self-determination" of the Jews in Palestine at the expense of the Arab masses, just as you cannot support "the right to national self-determination" of the Kelpers in Malvinas at the expense of the Latin American masses. That is the problem with the "bi-national" state slogan, which can be interpreted as a partial recognition of the ethnic cleansing by closing certain areas to the Palestinians in the name of Jewish "territorial autonomy", etc. What I'm saying is nothing new but the historical position of the FI on Palestine, as you can see from the document below:

The Partition of Palestine

Editorial of Fourth International

Organ of the International Executive Committee (November-December 1947)

The vote at the United Nations was no more than a formality after the "Big Three" had reached agreement, the partition of Palestine was virtually an accomplished fact. British imperialism withdraws in the Near East to a second line of defence, comparable to that which was put in place when India was divided. In the two states, Jewish and Arab, Great Britain retains the whole of its economic and financial positions. The Arab Legion of the hypothetical Arab state and the Hagana equally will operate in close agreement with the British War Office, as do the armies of the Hindus and the Moslems in India. And, as in India, partition has proved itself to be the most effective way to divert, at one and the same time, the struggle of the Arab masses and the discontent of the Jewish working population from an anti-imperialist explosion in the direction of a fratricidal struggle.

The manoeuvres of British imperialism have been made necessary by the diminution of its imperialist resources. This obliges the imperialists to cut down its "international commitments", so as, at one and the same time, to save dollars, manpower and tanks. This is presented under a still more favourable aspect in the specific case of Palestine. The establishment of an Arab state independent of Palestine is, in fact, highly unlikely. For this reason, king Abdullah of Transjordan, the no.1 pawn of the City of London in the Arab world, could very well succeed in unifying Eastern Palestine to his present kingdom, and thereby bring about the first stage towards the formation of the Empire of Greater Syria, the final objective of his dynasty and of the British bourgeoisie in the Near East. London will continue to rule without that costing the British taxpayer a single penny. The only people to suffer from it, of course, will be the masses of Palestine themselves.

For American imperialism, as for the Soviet bureaucracy, to accept partition means above all the liquidation of the British mandate and the opening of a struggle to inherit the abandoned position. The Kremlin welcomes the opening of a period of troubles in the Near East, through which it will do its best to weaken further the British positions and to prepare its own penetration, whether under the cover of a "Mixed Commission of the United Nations" or of a "trusteeship of the Big Three" over Jerusalem. American imperialism finds itself placed in Palestine, as earlier in Greece, before the problem of seeking a replacement to occupy the positions on the imperialist front which the British ally finds itself obliged to abandon. After the British troops are evacuated, Hagana will be the only military force in possession of modern equipment, a force foreign to the Arab world and which would serve if the occasion arose, to combat a native insurrection or a Russian thrust threatening the sources of oil. We should not therefore be surprised from now on if American imperialism attempts, whether by the method of financing or by that of forming a "Jewish League", to become the predominant influence on the leadership of Hagana and to make it an instrument of its own imperialist policy in the near East. However, it remains evident that the minute Jewish state, like the Zionist movement which preceded it, is considered by the great powers merely as a stake in their power game towards the Arab world. This state, far from receiving open and permanent "protection" from any one of these powers, will never cease to find itself in a precarious, uncertain position, and for its people from now on will open up a period of privations of terror and of terrible tension, which will only become sharper as the forces for emancipation of the Arab world increase.

The partition of Palestine and the clear overthrow of the Zionist positions - including those of most of the extremists - in the face of British imperialism, have struck a mortal blow to all the impressionist theories which bloomed in the light of the bombs of the Irgun. The fundamental solidarity of the Zionist movement, of Hagana and even of the Irgun with imperialism against the Arab masses has revealed itself in the clearest fashion. The whole crime of Zionism appears clearly in the fact that, thanks to its reactionary function, the first movements of the Arab masses in favour of a united, independent Palestine, are directed against the Jewish population, and not directly against imperialism. The most reactionary leaders of the Arab Committee for Palestine will thus have the opportunity to re-gild their coat of arms by spilling the blood of the unfortunate Jews who are victims of the Zionist deception.

The Zionist leaders throughout the world feted the establishment of the miniature state as a great victory. What a miserable mistake: The trap which Palestine has constitutes for the Jews, according to Trotsky's words, today quite simply has closed.

Without a radical reversal of the world situation and of the Zionist tendency of the Jewish workers' movement in Palestine, the complete extermination of the Jewish people, on the outbreak of the Arab revolution, will be the price paid by the Jewish people for the sad victory won at Lake Success. And, by a bitter irony of history, the establishment of an independent Jewish state, which, according to the profound Zionist theoreticians, was definitively to undermine world anti-semitism, has been the beginning of a savage pogromist outbreak in Aden and a new rise in anti-semitism throughout the world.

The position of the Fourth International towards the Palestinian problem remains clear and plain as in the past. It will be the vanguard of the struggle against partition, for a united, independent Palestine, in which the masses will supremely determine their own destiny for electing a Constituent Assembly. Against the effendis and the imperialist agents, against the manoeuvres of the Egyptian and the Syrian bourgeoisie, who try to divert the struggle for emancipation of the masses into a struggle against the Jews, it will issue calls for the agricultural revolution, for the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggle, which are essential driving forces of the Arab revolution. But it can only wage this struggle with the possibility of success on condition that it takes up its position, unequivocally, against the partition of the country and the establishment of the Jewish state.

More than ever it is necessary at the same time to call on the working people of America Britain, Canada and Australia, the working people of every country, to struggle for the frontiers of their countries to be opened without any discrimination to the refugees, the displaced persons, to all the Jews who wish to emigrate. It is only on condition that we seriously, effectively and successfully carry on this struggle that we can explain to the Jews the reasons for which they should not go into the Palestinian ambush. The terrible experience which awaits the Jewish masses in the "miniature state" will at the same tine create the premises for wider layers to break from criminal Zionism. If this break is not made in time, the "Jewish state" will go down in blood.
koshka17
 
Message(s) : 0
Inscription : 15 Jan 2004, 20:11

PrécédentSuivant

Retour vers Actualités internationales

Qui est en ligne ?

Utilisateur(s) parcourant ce forum : Aucun utilisateur inscrit et 2 invité(s)