However, in its early years until the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, Zionism only reflected the

opinion of a small minority of Jews. It was denounced as blasphemous by the rabbis, as anti-Semitic by liberal Jews, and as a nationalist diversion by the socialists. From 1881, when the massive wave of pogroms was unleashed in Russia following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II, until the outbreak of World War I in 1914, about 1.5 million Jews fled the Russian empire. Of these, about 15,000 made their way to Palestine, and half of these left again within a year. It is a myth that Jews had a strong urge to immigrate to Palestine, and even at a time of tightening immigration controls and incipient racism, the overwhelming majority preferred to go to Western Europe, the USA or Argentina. In the early years of British rule in Palestine from 1917, the Jewish community grew both in size and strength. But, even following the rise of Nazism and the increasing difficulty in gaining visas for the west, most Jewish refugees ignored the appeals of the Zionists to settle in Palestine. Following the establishment of the state of Israel, the Zionist movement altered its focus. The enforced flight of 800,000 Palestinians from their homes, and the conquest of large areas of state-owned land, posed a dilemma for the government of the new state. Although, it wished to use the land for the benefit of Jews, and to prevent the return of the refugees or the loss of the stolen land, it was reluctant to spell this out in explicitly racist laws. Consequently in 1952, Israel passed the World Zionist Organization and in 1953 the Jewish National Fund Law, which gave statutory powers to the institutions of the World Zionist Organization. These bodies, registered as charities in the west had constitutions which bound them to use their funds for the benefit of Jews alone. By virtue of the laws and the subsequent covenant between the state of Israel and these bodies, it has been possible to ensure that the majority of the land (over 90%) is available for Jews only, which includes the welfare benefits,

schools, hospitals, paved roads, sewage and other essential services for Jews but not for Arabs, and that an entire structure of apartheid has been built up, without the need for any explicitly discriminatory laws. The whole process has been so complex, and deliberately veiled in a mass of legal verbiage, to the extent that Israel has been able to deny that it discriminates between citizens on the basis of race or religion, and challenges to this are dismissed as legalistic or pedantic. Israel defines itself in its Basic Laws as the state of the Jewish people. This means not only that non-Jews resident and born in the state can never be equal citizens with those recognized as Jews, but that Jews across the world, even if they are not citizens of Israel and have no intention of living there, have potentially a greater say than no-Jewish citizens. It is not legal to stand for election in Israel on a platform of changing this definition, or its consequences. This discriminatory structure needs to be removed in its entirety. This is what is meant by the call for the dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel. It is not as Zionists and their apologists claim, a call for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews or for the banning of particular ideas, but a basic democratic demand. Recently, a group of right-wing army officers in Israel has called for the gerrymandering of the electoral system to prevent the election of Palestinians to the Knesset, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in Jordan. Sharon himself has long subscribed to this strategy, which was part of the logic for the 1982 invasion of Lebanon under his command. In essence, there is little to distinguish this from the separation proposals coming from the left; the only difference is the precise location of the border. Our solution is through the establishment of a socialist federation of the Middle East. Within this context, we support the demand for a unitary, democratic and secular Palestine. We argue that the Palestinian and Arab bourgeoisie has failed to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution, which in Europe included the democratization and secularization of society. Thus, the

demands for democracy and secularism, which come from the working class against the various feudal and military regimes, have a permanent revolutionary nature in the Middle East. A democratic and unitary Palestine would pose a serious threat to the existing regimes in the region. It is unlikely that it could be established except in the context of a revolutionary upsurge through the Arab east. We should support this demand, while making clear in our propaganda that this is not counter to the creation of a socialist federation. We should call for a constituent assembly of the people of Palestine, those residing there now, whatever their ethnic origin, and those prevented from living there as a result of the establishment of the state of Israel and its expulsions. We should attempt to establish links with those groups and individuals raising this demand in Palestine and Israel.

The Palestine solidarity movement There are currently at least three important solidarity groups in Britain. They have different origins and priorities, and sometimes attempt to work together. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) was established in 1982. Unlike predecessors, it was able to steer clear of sectarian identification with any one political group. In the early years, it had several Palestinian members close to the Palestinian left. However, PSC has followed closely the line of the PLO leadership. PSC supported the Oslo agreement, and in the 1994 or 1995 it dropped opposition to Zionism and to imperialism from its aims. This led to the resignation of a large part of the organization, including several key activists. PSC has also consistently refused to mobilize practical and financial support for independent Palestinian organizations, insisting that any such support had to go through the

official PLO channels. Since the establishment of the Palestine authority as Israels agent in the occupied territories, such support has in effect reinforced the occupation. Nevertheless, PSC has continued to function as a serious propaganda and campaigning organization, with several groups around Britain. PSC is very cautious about supporting or identifying with other liberation struggles or mass campaigns. The Campaign for Palestinian Rights (CPR) was set up, principally by the SWP, following the start of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000. It is nominally a membership organization, though it also seeks labour movement affiliations. The main differences with PSC seem to be the active involvement of the SWP, and a political analysis which sees the Palestinian struggle as an integral part of the anti-globalization movement. These do not seem sufficient reasons to establish a separate organization, and the suspicion must be that the SWP wanted to have its own organization, rather than contributing to building and changing the existing PSC. Decision-making processes in the CPR are far from transparent, and there seems to be an emphasis on getting the job done, rather than discussing the politics and agreeing a line. Relations between the campaigns have been relatively cordial, with PSC representatives attending CPR planning meetings, and each group providing speaking platforms for the other. However, the separate existence of these two campaigns can only weaken the solidarity movement. The Palestine Right to Return Coalition (Al-Awda) is an international, internet-based campaign, mainly of Palestinians, focusing on the centrality of the refugees and their demand to return. As such, it is independent of, and frequently in opposition to, the PLO leadership and the PA. It has a particularly complex structure, with decisions being made by internet voting of its thousands of members, and local committees answerable to an international leadership appointed by an internet election. In Britain, Al-Awda has organized a number of very large

demonstrations. Before the establishment of the CPR, Al-Awda filled the vacuum left by the failure of PSC to organize effective solidarity action. However, by its very nature, Al-Awda can never involve large numbers of activists in Britain, and they could not determine its positions. Despite this, it is an important group, which also works closely with the CPR and PSC. There are also several smaller, more focused, campaigning groups. We should note particularly the Campaign for Freedom for Samar and Jawad, which works for the release of the Palestinians framed for bomb attacks in London in 1994, and the Boycott Israel Goods (BIG) campaign, whose name is self-explanatory. Solidarity Tasks We need to rebuild an active and campaigning, labor-movement based solidarity movement. We should support initiatives of all of the existing groups, unless they directly contradict our positions. We should not support a demo in support of the Oslo process, or one explicitly calling for two states. However, where appropriate we should be there giving out our own dissenting leaflets. We should support any initiative to unite the current groups. If this is successful, we should consider allocating further resources to fuller participation in the resulting campaign. It is essential to take our demands into the labor movement. We should be calling for direct links between unions, womens groups, community associations etc. This requires the organization of delegations to Palestine, who can meet their counterparts there and will become the most committed and effective campaigners here. We must work towards providing practical material support for groups and campaigns in Palestine organizing independently of the PLO and the PA. The initiative of the Labor Party of Pakistan and the Scottish Socialist Party in establishing the Afghan Workers Solidarity Fund may provide a useful model here.

The greater urgency of the situation since this document was written, and the sheer scale of the daily slaughter, calls for an increased prioritization of work around Palestine. Every comrade and branch should take part in mobilizations and activity on the issue of Palestine. Comrades should raise immediate demands within their unions, in addition to explaining our analysis that the conflict cannot be resolved through partition, and without challenging Zionism. Every branch should discuss Palestine in the context of its tasks following conference, and should allocate resources appropriately. The decision to take an active role in building a local campaign, and within which solidarity group, will depend on local circumstances. We should support any initiative to unite the current groups, with the aim of rebuilding an active and campaigning, labor-movement based solidarity campaign. If this is successful, we should consider allocating further resources, nationally as well as locally, to the resulting campaign. The immediate demand of this work must be End the Occupation! ie immediate, total and unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the territories occupied in 1967. This demand is now so urgent, and the need to end the daily brutality and carnage so pressing, that we should work with any groups or individuals raising this demand (unless, of course, they do so with a racist, particularly anti-Jewish, message). Other immediate demands should be for an end arms sales to Israel (and arms purchases from Israel), and for a boycott of Israeli goods, services and tourism. We should additionally support the campaigns and initiatives of all of the existing groups, unless they directly contradict our positions. We should not support a demo supporting the Oslo process, or one explicitly calling for two states. However, where appropriate we should be there giving out our own dissenting leaflets. It is essential to take our demands into the labor movement. We should be calling for direct links between unions, womens groups, community

associations etc. In our propaganda on the issue, we must place the conflict in the context of the imperialist strategy in the Middle East. We should explain why we reject the idea that this context can be resolved through the continued partition of Palestine and the Palestinian people, the logic of which is a further push towards apartheid. In addition to work around the occupation in general, we should be supporting specific campaigns where possible. For instance, we should support, and raise the demands of, the campaign for Freedom and Justice for Samar and Jawad. Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh are two Palestinian left activists framed for the bombing of the Israeli Embassy and Zionist HQ in London in 1994. Their conviction, and long sentences, is reminiscent of several other notorious miscarriages of justice in Britain, particularly the use of Public Interest Immunity Certificates to suppress intelligence information which should lead to their acquittal. We should also support the Campaign to Free Vanunu, bearing in mind that although kidnapped in Rome, Mordechai Vanunu was the victim of a criminal conspiracy in Britain to lure him into the hands of the Israeli authorities. Conference should also agree to continue the discussion around our programmatic position, and should call on the incoming Central Committee to establish a small working group to organize and coordinate this.