Comment by Sean Malloy
The right of nations to self-determination is not a universal, abstract concept applicable to every nation. It is a formula for overcoming the oppression of one nation by another in a concrete historical context.
Vivienne Porzsolt writes in GLW #116 that "the core of the struggle in Palestine/Israel is the clash of legitimate nationalisms". Yet in the same article she says that "Malloy, Lorimer and I are agreed that Israel as currently constituted is a colonial settler state".
Porzsolt's argument, that colonial settler states have national rights as legitimate as those of oppressed nations, would mean that the "rights" of Afrikaners, white Rhodesians and Anglo-Australians, to name a few examples, are as legitimate as the rights of the people they oppress.
The conflict in Palestine is not a struggle between two equal forces over the same land. Israel is oppressing Palestinians, in terms of both their national rights and their human rights.
This oppression is rooted in the colonial nature of the formation of Israel, the denial of the right of the Palestinian nation to form its own state, the forcible eviction of Palestinians from their land and the forced partition of Palestine.
Porzsolt asks, after agreeing that Israel is a colonial settler state, "for what other such state — Australia, the Americas, Africa, etc would the proposed solution be the abolition of that state?"
In Australia, for example, it would be a step forward to abolish the current state and replace it with a progressive one directly accountable to the majority of people, which would uphold the rights of indigenous people and respect the sovereignty of third world countries.
Abolition of a state does not mean the abolition of the peoples identified with that state.
Zimbabwe, for example, was invaded by British settlers in 1890. The colonialists plundered the country, exploited its indigenous inhabitants and imposed a system of oppression. This form of colonial state existed until 1980 when free elections were held.
Independence with majority rule in Zimbabwe and the initial dismantling of its racist institutions did not mean oppression of the white population. In fact, they remain in a position of relative economic power. The abolition of the colonial state was a step forward even though the struggle for genuine equality between whites and blacks continues.
South Africa is another example where abolition of the state would be a step forward. The state that replaces it, however, needs to be determined by those oppressed. Allowing the white minority alone to determine the state would defeat the whole purpose of replacing the old state.
In South Africa the liberation movement is struggling for a non-racist, non-sexist, democratic state. The African National Congress, sees this as the best formation in which to begin the process of overcoming decades of oppression.
The ANC has argued against a separate white state. A separate white state would in effect veto the right of black South Africans to choose the form of state that will overcome their oppression. Of course, in a particular balance of forces, the ANC may decide that separate white "homelands" are a necessary compromise on the path to its overall goal.
The same principle applies to Palestinians. Israeli self-determination is a veto of the right of Palestinians to determine the form and content of the state that they consider will best overcome their oppression. The two-state solution is only a step towards that goal. A Palestinian mini-state can be an example of a democratic, secular state; it provides a basis for greater unity and political organisation of Palestinians; it places Palestinians on a better footing to establish relations with Israel and its population. But it does not yet end the oppression of the Palestinian people.
Porzsolt argues, however, that "The democratic secular state formula was always predicated on a Palestinian majority. Here we see how the racist concept of the 'demographic problem' lurks beneath the surface whenever we argue on the ground of national rights, as opposed to human rights. The retention of national control of the homeland is dependent on essentially racist immigration criteria — for both Palestinians and Israelis."
The continuation of Israel as a separatist Jewish state means continuing oppression of Palestinians. A mini-state is not a long-term solution. Palestinians have a right to access to land and resources usurped by Zionists in 1948. Under the current "two-state" agreement, Israel is still in a position of power.
The only consistent position progressives can take is equal rights for nations. In the context of Palestinians and Israelis this can genuinely take place only on the same land. A democratic, secular, state is the minimum formation that could uphold equal national and human rights for all residents of that land.