Hadash’s take on “two states”

Assaf Talgam, a member of Maki and Hadash, spoke to Solidarity on 14 November. The first part of this interview was in Solidarity 691.

Historically the two state solution was almost the consensus among Jews in Israel: ten years ago, even Netanyahu acknowledged that it was the only viable solution. However, in recent years it has become much less prominent in the discourse.

Labour traditionally supported it, but they do not talk about it any more and it is merely a formality for them. Many Zionists from the centre say that in theory they support a compromise with the Palestinians, but that there is nothing to talk about at the moment because of Hamas and the war.

Even though some others might support it in principle, Hadash-Ta’al are the only people in the Knesset actively fighting for a two state solution.

Hadash is, apart from the Communist Party [Maki], the oldest and most well established force among the Arab citizens of Israel. It has very strong roots among this Arab population. Other Arab parties have come and gone, but Hadash/Maki are the only parties with significant Arab support which have been continuously represented in parliament since 1948. At the last election Hadash-Ta’al won 5 out of 120 seats in parliament, and gained 180,000 votes. These were mainly from Arab voters.

Jewish support for Maki and Hadash has seriously declined since the glory days of the 50s and 60s, and since then it has had no significant support base among the Jewish public. We do still insist on being a joint Arab-Jewish organisation however, with Jews and Arabs serving in our leadership, and we maintain a Hebrew-language publication. We also do have meaningful support among Jewish intellectuals, students, and activists.

Two states has been the historic position of the Israeli Communist Party, and of Hadash since its formation. We believe that the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination, as do the Israeli people.

Self-determination

This right should be honoured and respected through the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, alongside Israel, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Opinion polls have consistently shown that this is also what most Israelis and Palestinians want. We respect the rights of both peoples to self-determination, in accordance with the Leninist principle of national self-determination.

On this point, I would like to explain our stance on Israeli nationhood. We do not believe that the Jewish people are a national entity in themselves. Jews in the US are part of the American nation, Jews in Britain are part of the British nation, and deserve self-determination as part of that nation.

However, in Israel a unique Israeli nationality has emerged. This is the nationality that we believe has a right to self-determination in Israel, not the Jewish people. This is why we disagree with the Law of Return that grants any Jew anywhere in the world the right to be naturalised as an Israeli citizen. This law also plays into the hands of antisemites who want to drive Jews out of their own nation.

The trend to give up on two states and call for a “one-state solution” is among activists and intellectuals — there is no political party in Israel calling for a one state solution on these grounds. It is a reaction of despair, and they have lost hope in any chance of a two state solution so have instead escaped into their imagination, calling for this mythical single state. Many of these people are cosmopolitan urban leftists, and naive about nationalism in the grassroots of Israeli and Palestinian society.

This often goes together with giving up on any hope of dismantling the settlements. It will certainly be difficult and I don’t see it happening any time soon, but there are historical precedents.

We acknowledge the right of return, and it should be recognised as a part of any peace solution. It should apply to the occupied territories, not just the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Palestinian refugees and their offspring do have a right to return. However, in many cases where there was a Palestinian village in 1948 there is now an Israeli village or city. We cannot correct a past injustice by carrying out a new one. Part of a solution could be giving people a different piece of land. We should also give reparations to survivors of the Nakba, just as Germany gave reparations to survivors of the Holocaust.

Talk about the right of return and how it would be carried out in practice feels far off and imaginary today. We can’t imagine any political scenario in which this will take place at the moment, but sooner or later we will have to think about how this can happen. However, we can’t decide that now.

Palestinians should be allowed to decide where they want to live, and to be able to live in the general areas they (or their ancestors) were expelled from if they wish, but Israelis should not be uprooted from their homes.

Most Zionists also raise these demographic fears about the right of return, and the threat of Palestinians become the majority. We want to convince Israelis that a right of return would mean Palestinians coming to live alongside them, not to displace them.

In general the trade union movement in Israel has weakened during Netanyahu’s terms in power, and more generally it has been in decline since the 90s. However, the Histadrut is still the strongest workers’ organisation in Israel and still has quite a lot of power. The existence of this power is an important thing, even if it is rarely used against the government or the employers. Since the 1990s the Histadrut has had a very opportunistic leadership which would often rather cooperate with neoliberal governments than fight for the interests of workers.

Hadash is active within the Histadrut. We have representatives on the Histadrut council, and we want to steer this organisation to take a more militant working class approach against the neoliberal government. We have not had many successes with this, but the fight is still important.

I don’t know much about the discourse about the boycott and Histadrut, but in general I think that the boycott should be directed against the government and capital, not the workers’ movement, even though its leadership often cooperates with the Zionist movement and government.

Histadrut played an important role in the movement against Netanyahu’s anti-democratic judicial reforms. The greatest success of the protest movement was the day the Histadrut declared a one-day general strike against the judicial reform, and caused Netanyahu to back down. The success of the protest movement when it was backed by the Histadrut demonstrates their importance and strength, and the Histadrut can be influenced - it is not a lost cause.