I don’t have an axe to grind with the CPI and they’ve been good enough to publish an article of mine in the past, but I have to say I find the analysis of the war in Palestine deeply problematic.
I’ll take it as a given that everyone (bar the odd troll) opposes what Israel is doing. But the language in the statement essentially endorses every aspect of the attacks on October 7. Statements from People before Profit and the Workers Party that I’ve read also basically do this.
Now the CPI opposed the Provisional IRA’s armed struggle, partly on the basis that it was counter-productive and also because the killing of civilians undermined the possibility of popular support. The main organisation involved in PBP also opposed the IRA’s campaign and the Workers Party (as regulars will now doubt know) considered that the Provos were actually ‘fascist.’ (The Brighton bomb, probably the least offensive aspect of the IRA’s campaign, was described by the WP as an attack on democracy). Well if the Provos were ‘fascist’ (and I don’t believe they were) then what are the politics of Hamas? And if targeting civilians in Ireland was wrong, then why do all Israeli civilians (including children, old people, teenagers etc) no matter what their politics, ethnic background (including migrant workers from Asia) seem to be considered legitimate targets? I can hazard a guess; ‘settlers’, ‘oppressors’ etc.
Now, for a variety of reasons, Israel has the largest number of WW2 Red Army veterans outside the former USSR.
Are these people all settler-colonists as well? Would they have been legitimate targets on October 7? Perhaps. What about the 50% or so of Israel’s population whose families came originally from Yemen, Iraq, Iran and so on? Or those descended from the 400,000 Jews who lived there before Israel was established? Or the Jews who lived there in the 19th century? Do people think every Israeli is an arrogant New Yorker with a gun on a settlement on the West Bank? Because some certainly are, but as you could see from some of the testimonies of those who lived in the places attacked on October 7, some are not.
My impression is that people are reeling off slogans in response to Israeli brutality with very little idea of what they mean in actuality.
Are Israel and Palestine the only places in the world where class doesn’t seem to matter? Does Israel not have a myriad of class and ethnic divisions that make it more than just another Rhodesia? Does it matter that the politics of Hamas are expressly anti-left and anti-progressive? And that these politics inform their choice of civilian targets?
And for those from the communist tradition, how is it that the Soviet Union was the first state to give recognition to Israel and that it was Czech arms, sent with Soviet support, that guaranteed the Zionists victory in 1948? Were the Politburo just having a off-day when they sanctioned that? At the time the orthodox communist press presented the conflict as one between reactionary Arab regimes backed by British imperialism and a somewhat progressive Jewish homeland. The communist movement might regret that now but it doesn’t do any good to pretend it never happened. And while Israel today is propped up by vast support from the US, that was not always the case - until 1967 France was its main arms supplier and the US put a halt to its gallop at Suez in 1956.
All this is a long way of saying that I can understand a Palestinian living in the hell of Gaza not wanting or needing nuance and aiding those people is the most important issue at the present moment. The Irish left, on the other hand, is at a remove whereby it could discuss these issues (as some progressives, Jewish Currents for example, are still trying to do in the midst of taking part in protests against the siege); yet what I see is vicarious pleasure at someone else’s armed struggle, often from people who opposed armed struggle in many other contexts.
I think the only reasonable demand at the moment is for a ceasefire and massive humanitarian aid to Gaza, but I get the impression some people are looking forward to a war they can support from a distance with little thought for the actual consequences for actual people.
I’ll take it as a given that everyone (bar the odd troll) opposes what Israel is doing. But the language in the statement essentially endorses every aspect of the attacks on October 7. Statements from People before Profit and the Workers Party that I’ve read also basically do this.
Now the CPI opposed the Provisional IRA’s armed struggle, partly on the basis that it was counter-productive and also because the killing of civilians undermined the possibility of popular support. The main organisation involved in PBP also opposed the IRA’s campaign and the Workers Party (as regulars will now doubt know) considered that the Provos were actually ‘fascist.’ (The Brighton bomb, probably the least offensive aspect of the IRA’s campaign, was described by the WP as an attack on democracy). Well if the Provos were ‘fascist’ (and I don’t believe they were) then what are the politics of Hamas? And if targeting civilians in Ireland was wrong, then why do all Israeli civilians (including children, old people, teenagers etc) no matter what their politics, ethnic background (including migrant workers from Asia) seem to be considered legitimate targets? I can hazard a guess; ‘settlers’, ‘oppressors’ etc.
Now, for a variety of reasons, Israel has the largest number of WW2 Red Army veterans outside the former USSR.
Are these people all settler-colonists as well? Would they have been legitimate targets on October 7? Perhaps. What about the 50% or so of Israel’s population whose families came originally from Yemen, Iraq, Iran and so on? Or those descended from the 400,000 Jews who lived there before Israel was established? Or the Jews who lived there in the 19th century? Do people think every Israeli is an arrogant New Yorker with a gun on a settlement on the West Bank? Because some certainly are, but as you could see from some of the testimonies of those who lived in the places attacked on October 7, some are not.
My impression is that people are reeling off slogans in response to Israeli brutality with very little idea of what they mean in actuality.
Are Israel and Palestine the only places in the world where class doesn’t seem to matter? Does Israel not have a myriad of class and ethnic divisions that make it more than just another Rhodesia? Does it matter that the politics of Hamas are expressly anti-left and anti-progressive? And that these politics inform their choice of civilian targets?
And for those from the communist tradition, how is it that the Soviet Union was the first state to give recognition to Israel and that it was Czech arms, sent with Soviet support, that guaranteed the Zionists victory in 1948? Were the Politburo just having a off-day when they sanctioned that? At the time the orthodox communist press presented the conflict as one between reactionary Arab regimes backed by British imperialism and a somewhat progressive Jewish homeland. The communist movement might regret that now but it doesn’t do any good to pretend it never happened. And while Israel today is propped up by vast support from the US, that was not always the case - until 1967 France was its main arms supplier and the US put a halt to its gallop at Suez in 1956.
All this is a long way of saying that I can understand a Palestinian living in the hell of Gaza not wanting or needing nuance and aiding those people is the most important issue at the present moment. The Irish left, on the other hand, is at a remove whereby it could discuss these issues (as some progressives, Jewish Currents for example, are still trying to do in the midst of taking part in protests against the siege); yet what I see is vicarious pleasure at someone else’s armed struggle, often from people who opposed armed struggle in many other contexts.
I think the only reasonable demand at the moment is for a ceasefire and massive humanitarian aid to Gaza, but I get the impression some people are looking forward to a war they can support from a distance with little thought for the actual consequences for actual people.
⏩Brian Hanley is a historian.
Brilliant article which argues my sentiment far better than I ever could.
ReplyDeleteVery good article.
ReplyDeleteBrian Hanley did a brilliant podcast series, titled Dirty War in Dublin, which does away with romanticism and details many killings, murders, sexual assaults, and incidents of torture carried out by men closely associated with Michael Collins, and others who played major roles in the war of independence and the civil war.
I found the incidents of antiemetic murder particularly shocking.
https://twitter.com/dublindirtywar
https://twitter.com/dublindirtywar
A good article but I think it ought to address advocates for physical force on the left, such as Saoradh, that openly salutes the sadistic terrorism of Islamic Fundamentalists. If they can salute it then how far away are they from emulating the same depraved tactics?
ReplyDeleteThat should read "anti-Semitic" murder
ReplyDeleteDr. Fearghal MacBhloscaidh responds:
ReplyDeletehttps://blosc.wordpress.com/2023/11/11/hamas-the-irish-left/