Editorial on Israel-Iran War in July Socialist Standard
- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Comrades,
I write on behalf of Glasgow Branch concerning the above. At our last meeting we had much discussion regarding the Editorial (Editorial – Yet another Middle East war’) in this month’s Socialist Standard (No-1451 July 2025):In particular we found the last sentence of the fourth paragraph rather puzzling:
“Who controls the oil, and the trade routes and pipelines to get it out, has been the stake in all the many wars in the Middle East since the end of the last World War. On the surface the issue appears to be the existence of the state of Israel, established in 1948 as a ‘Jewish homeland’ on land that been the home for generations of non-Jews. This, in itself, was bound to create resentment but it might have worked had not the United States decided to build up Israel’s military might as its proxy on the ground in the region to defend its economic interests there.”
The Branch came to view this sentence as being rather vague and ambiguous, and members questioned its historical validity.
A few questions arise:
Could Israel have ‘worked’ as a ‘Jewish homeland’?
Given recent events in Gaza, and its history of terrorism, ethnic cleansing, genocide and war to establish the Israeli State, a state based on a racist ideology of Zionism, how could it have ‘worked’?
What would it look like?
Would it have a form of ‘democracy’?
For whom would it have worked?
Despite there being minorities within it such as Palestinians, ultra-orthodox/traditional Jews, Druze, Christians and other non-Jews, this state is conceived as an exclusively Jewish state, or at least one with an overwhelmingly Jewish majority.
Were the US capitalist interests the only factor in the failure to establish an Israeli state that ‘worked’?
Was it not the product of the WWII, ailing Western European Empires, and a pernicious and violent form of ethno-religious nationalism?
Was Israel not doomed from the start, another detour, a dead end?
Books can and have been written about this subject and Glasgow Branch would be interested in such a discussion.
Finally, after all our discussion, we were none the wiser regarding the meaning of the sentence in question. We were wondering if perhaps the writer had meant to say that less resentment may have been created but for the actions of the USA, and that is what might have ‘worked’, but we are guessing again!
So, we are still unsure of what “might have worked”.
However, this uncertainty did mean that the article generated more discussion than may have been the case otherwise!
JC
Acting Branch Secretary
SPGB Glasgow BranchIf the state of Israel that the zionists had set up in Palestine had not been backed and built up militarily by the US for its own purposes, its rulers would have been forced to compromise with the neighbouring states and something different might have emerged. Maybe something like Lebanon, where different “communities” have managed to co-exist more or less peacefully for most of the time. Certainly Israel would not have been able to develop nuclear weapons and bomb all its neighbours with impunity.
But this is just speculation and we are where we are.
Without USA, France and Britain economic, technological and military aids to Israel, the economic and military development of Isreal would have been at the level of other Arabs countries, or third world countries. France was the one who helped Isreal to develop its nuclear program, and the USA provides millions of dollars in military aids.
The main purpose of establishing Israel was in order to be used as a catapult to protect the oil interests of the western powers and the USA, without a powerful army financed by the USA, Isreal would have been defeated several times in the middle east, even more during the war in Central America, Israel was the provider of weapons to the Nicaraguan contras
It is the same purpose of Puerto Rico which was established as a military base in order to send invasions and US interventions toward Central America, South America and the Caribbeans islands, to protect the interest of the USA, it is a strategic position.
There are rumors that they were planning or there were proposal to establish Israel in Angola, or west Africa, and Uganda
I don’t disagree with the comtributions here but the quote below i found too problematic for the reasons outloned above:
“This, in itself, was bound to create resentment but IT MIGHT HAVE WORKED had not the United States decided to build up Israel’s military might as its proxy on the ground in the region to defend its economic interests there.”
Since before, during and after Israel’s formal establishment it was (and is) constantly at war, constantly genociding, why in the world getting armed to the teeth by the US be incompatible with Zionist objectives? Indeed, Israel has enjoyed untrammelled access to political power in the US, Germany, UK and the EU, and other Western powers. This has served them well, with the destruction of their enemies, Iraq, Syria, the neutering of Lebenon and Egypt. Though they got the ass spanked by Iran, again Israel begged the US intervene on their behalf in the end, for a nominal hit on Irans nuclear sites.
How could Israel be established any other way, but through terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and with such benefactors and imperialist powers as UK, US, Germany, France, EU?
How could it.possibly survive as a a ziojist entity without the backing of the US, UK, EU?
Without this backing they’d have to shelve their racist endeavour and compramise.
But it would look very different state; not Israel: with mo apartheid, with formal equality, whether Christian, jew or Muslim they would enjoy some equality thats in a liberal democracy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.