Letters

Zionist crimes

The president of Israel, Isaac Herzog, has recently complained about a “worldwide rise in anti-Semitism”, specifically “following Hamas’s brutal attack of October 7 2023”. He doesn’t explain how an “attack” on people who were predominantly Israeli/Jewish could of it itself stimulate “worldwide hatred of Jews”. That makes no rational or logical sense.

In reality, the events of October 7 resulted from a mass breakout by Hamas and other military formations from the Gaza concentration camp, quickly overrunning Israeli military positions, which appeared woefully unprepared. Slightly under 1,200 Israelis were killed, including 379 active members of the Israeli security forces. Of course, most of the Israeli population have undergone military training and many have immediate access to firearms.

In violent contrast, since October 7, Israeli security forces have already killed (‘massacred’ is a better word) at least 100,000 Palestinians, the vast majority of whom have been unarmed civilians - a large proportion, of course, have been young children.

Israel continues to further subject the Gazan population to deliberate mass starvation and denial of other basic necessities, such as clean water, basic sanitation and medical help. They have deliberately targeted and murdered medical personnel - who have, incredibly bravely, attempted to provide vital help to Palestinians under violent occupation - and journalists, to prevent any semblance of objective reporting.

Have the Israeli security services ever used Yom Kippur or any other Jewish religious day or period to stop their ongoing massacring and murder of innocent civilians? Have they ever respected the religious festivals, days or special periods in either the Christian or Muslim calendars to pause their ongoing mass murders and general repression of the Palestinian people? Would it really have made much difference if they had, materially or even morally?

Of course, any and all hatred of people who happen to be Jewish, whether ethnically, religiously, culturally or self-identified, is unacceptable, should be condemned without hesitation and combatted, wherever it occurs. However, what we have really seen a “worldwide rise” in is deep revulsion and utter condemnation of the Israeli state - especially in its response to October 7, but also the whole of their violent and cruel displacement and oppression of the Palestinian people, which started with the creation of the settler-colonial state of Israel in 1948, and saw a further intensification with the 1967 war and Israeli military occupation of the remaining parts of Palestine - Gaza and the West Bank (amounting to just 22% of the original Mandate Palestine) - the seizure of the then strategically important Syrian territory of the Golan Heights and of the Egyptian Sinai.

We have also seen over the years repeated brutal and savage Israeli military invasions of its Arab neighbours, especially Lebanon, and either actual or effective occupation of their land. It is an open secret that Israel has illegally developed weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons and delivery systems, in order to threaten and intimidate its neighbours. It continues to carry out overt military strikes and only slightly more covert acts of terrorism, including mass bombings and targeted assassinations (and with increasingly open impunity and arrogance) against its near and not so near neighbours.

Given that none of the Arab and other countries in the Middle and Near East have nuclear or any other types of weapons of mass destruction, which might act as any form of deterrent, given Israel’s track record of what increasingly appears to be a rogue terrorist state, would it really be beyond the realm of possibility that Israel will actually use a nuclear weapon on one of its neighbours within the next five or 10 years. It is clear from their actions and words, the leaders of the Israeli state regard Arab and other eastern peoples as ‘sub-human’. Would they really blanch at wiping out a further few hundred thousand such people if that radically strengthened the intimidatory and threatening power of their state?

The relative success, it has to be said, of the Israeli state and its western backers in perversely and ridiculously managing to equate opposition to the actions, policies and behaviours of the Israeli state - plus support for the basic national, political and basic human rights of the Palestinian people - with ‘anti-Semitism’ does need to be openly challenged and combatted.

The great majority of those worldwide who strongly condemn Israel’s occupation, repression and indeed attempted genocide of the Palestinian people are in no way whatsoever ‘anti-Semitic’ in the sense of that term meaning ‘feeling hatred against people who are Jewish simply because they are Jewish’. Indeed, their pro-Palestinianism and anti-Israeli-ism is often strongly motivated by the deepest humanitarian values and principles and rejection of any and all forms of racism, bigotry and oppression of all peoples of any and all ethnicities.

But if the “worldwide rise” in the revulsion and condemnation of the state of Israel does contain some degree of actual anti-Semitism, surely those who have peddled the ‘criticisms of Israel equals anti-Semitism’ nonsense have a major responsibility here. If the mass, democratic, pro-Palestinian demonstrations and support, together with condemnations of the appalling conduct and actions of the Israeli state, are all attacked under the attempted cover of being ‘anti-Semitic’, then it is not really surprising that this demagoguery may itself generate some degree of actual anti-Semitism.

This is not really helped by the state of Israel declaring it to be the state of all Jewish people worldwide. Of course, many Jewish people around the world would not subscribe to this supremacist concept or even positively identify with the state of Israel.

Actual anti-Semitism anywhere and at any time is obviously reprehensible and needs to be condemned where it actually takes place, but I think it is those who have peddled the ‘anti-Israel equals anti-Semitism’ nonsense who find themselves hoisted on their own petards here.

Andrew Northall
Kettering

Rosenbergs info

Gaby Rubin’s otherwise great article on the PBS documentary regarding the Rosenbergs has one factual error and another by omission (‘McCarthyite secrets and lies’ October 2).

Firstly, the children of the Rosenbergs did not establish the Rosenberg Foundation. They set up the Rosenberg Fund for Children (RFC), which I financially support and encourage others to do as well. Robert Meeropol, the son of Ethel and Julius, founded it, while their granddaughter, Jennifer, oversees the foundation today. As the article touches on, the RFC states how it “was established to provide for the educational and emotional needs of children whose parents have suffered because of their progressive activities and who, therefore, are no longer able to provide fully for their children.”

That being said, I’ve always felt uncertain about the RFC’s campaign to exonerate Ethel, which was ignored by the Biden administration during its last days in office. Personally, I believe that, even if Ethel had been some kind of evil communist who gave away to the Soviets the secrets of the bomb, I wouldn’t consider that criminal from the perspective of the working class - nothing to warrant exoneration there.

Finally, the article misses a chance to recommend Anne Sebba’s biography, Ethel Rosenberg: an American tragedy. On the RFC website, Robert Meeropol states: “[Sebba] writes from a feminist perspective [and about] women who have been wronged and misperceived. This is perhaps the perfect person to write [the book]. It’s not an authorised biography, but it is the only literary work about my mother that does her life justice. I can’t say higher praise.”

I highly recommend checking out the book and the RFC.

C Duran
Chicago

YP bans?

We have had numerous local Your Party organisations formed spontaneously around the country. I assume their members will join ‘Our Party’ from the inaugural conference. This is a natural development from the grassroots nature of the party.

You cannot be a member of any other party, according to Jeremy Corbyn. Carla Roberts suggests the intended exclusion of other parties may reflect on Karie Murphy’s desire to keep out Marxist sects (‘Civil war continues’ September 25). I am more concerned about Karie Murphy herself, and other insiders manipulating the preparations for conference and undermining Zarah Sultana’s instinctive preference for open and accountable democracy.

There is an impression of a clique around JC. He allowed himself to be badly advised as Labour leader. I think this shows him to be unsuited for leadership this time around.

I am also concerned about Zarah Sultana’s attraction to identity politics. This distracts our appeal from working class issues. There are plenty of vital women’s issues - from domestic abuse to rape - without being drawn into intra-feminist controversies, such as those around self-identity - look at the harm this did to the Scottish National Party.

I certainly do not want us to be taken over by a Marxist sect or a Momentum mark two. But they give themselves away as soon as they mention ‘the masses’. They cannot drop the jargon.

We want to provide a home for the millions who have lost faith in the cynical careerists in parliament, especially the unorganised working class. I am waiting for a leader to emerge from conference. We need more open and inclusive debate around the issues - more mutual respect, less ego, less infighting. Let’s save our fire for the right.

Alan Faith
email

Leeds YP

The following motion, headed ‘For a democratic socialist party’, has just been agreed unanimously at a meeting of supporters of Your Party in Leeds:

“If we want Your Party to be a vehicle for democratising society, work and everyday life, we must democratise Your Party in its structures and internal culture.

• We oppose secretive, self-appointed leaderships who do not submit themselves to a democratic mandate and promote their positions through bureaucratic manoeuvring instead of open political debate.
• The way Your Party has organised itself nationally so far has been neither democratic nor transparent. Openness and transparency at the top is essential for a truly member-controlled party.
• For democracy to be effective, rank-and-file members must understand why things are happening the way they are in the party.
• For democracy to be effective, rank-and-file members must have the freedom to formally and openly organise, and the freedom to openly argue for their positions. Mechanisms must exist in which they can argue for their positions to become democratically agreed policy.
• To enable freedom of speech, organisation and genuine member control, Your Party must be a single unitary party, not an umbrella group or federation of existing organisations or groups of elected officials.
• While the founding conference arrangements appear to be settled, we feel it is important to approach it critically and continue to advocate for the most democratic structures possible

To these ends, we support the following:

• We believe local Your Party groups should be the building blocks of a national party, and should be empowered to elect their own delegates, based on local debate and democratically agreed priorities.
• We believe national conferences should be the highest decision-making body of the party.
• We do not believe that elected officials should have any more decision-making power than any other rank-and-file member. Elected officials should be open to having the whip removed by members at the relevant level and face mandatory reselection.
• We believe in the freedom to form temporary or permanent open factions and caucuses within the party. We believe in a model of collective leadership, elected by the widest possible layer of members. We believe that Your Party should engage in all arenas of struggle for a socialist society, including in workplaces, neighbourhoods and social movements. We do not believe elections should be prioritised over these other areas.
• We believe that the party should be a vehicle for socialism, a society and economy that is run by and for the working class in all its diversity. Socialism, anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism should be enshrined in Your Party’s constitution.
• We believe the struggle against oppression in all its forms (racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia) is essential to the struggle for socialism. Political education should be a key component of Your Party’s work.

We call on our elected Leeds Steering Group to:

• Publish and promote this statement.
• Reach out to other Yorkshire Your Party groups and attempt to organise YP supporters on the points above.
• To assist in organising a Yorkshire-wide meeting on the basis of the above as points of unity, in order to advocate for these shared goals at the upcoming regional assemblies.”

Lynn Jackson
email

Class dictatorship

Tony Clark is at it again - he just does not understand the meaning of the term, ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. He writes: “A dictatorship, by its very nature, is unaccountable to an elected body. If it is accountable, it is not a dictatorship, and therefore the term would be incorrect for describing working class, socialist rule, in the absence of an emergency situation” (Letters, October 2)

While Marxists are totally opposed to the dictatorship of a tiny elite, we do favour the ‘dictatorship’ of the overwhelming majority. In other words, we are talking about class rule. Take ‘bourgeois democratic’ states like the UK and USA. Yes, the working class has won a whole series of democratic rights and made other gains, but, at the end of the day, these are limited by the needs of the bourgeoisie. In other words, it is the operation of capital which determines the way forward for bourgeois governments: it guides, restricts or modifies every policy they adopt. That is why it is reasonable to describe capitalist rule as a means of ensuring the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

In other words, for as long as social classes continue to exist, governments of any class will impose measures to limit the power of the enemy class. Thus, immediately after any working class revolution, for as long as capitalist production still exists, in however limited a form, we will need to ensure that our own collective interests, not those of the bourgeoisie, determine the way forward. That is why the class which forms the overwhelming majority of the population will have to impose its ‘dictatorship’ over the tiny bourgeois minority.

But we must do that in a democratic way: the entire population will elect representatives, who will debate and vote for the appropriate measures - irrespective of the opposition of the bourgeoisie or any other class minority. That is why the Bolsheviks aimed for the establishment of a “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry” - the rule of the majority, as opposed to that of the minority of capitalists and landowners.

Peter Manson
London

Autocratic SUtR

The latest moves by Stand Up to Racism North-East, show increasing autocratic rule from above (essentially the Socialist Workers Party and friends). Activists and even whole branches have been unilaterally removed from SUtR WhatsApp structures and new ‘guidelines’ imposed to restrict debate.

This follows a stand by many rank-and-file activists and community groups for a blockade of the fascist Ukip ‘Mass deportations now’ march in Newcastle on September 27. This was opposed by SutR NE by making allegations of “sectarian” splitters and squadism.

The official report by NE organiser Rob bigs up the rally at the Monument. There was a huge turnout, with its 27 picked speakers, well away from the fascists it claims to have stopped. Somehow the report forgot to mention the hundreds of activists who blockaded the fascists in the street called Side, then at the asylum hotel that Ukip planned to besiege. Fortunately lots of people left the Monument to join the action, which was also ignored in the report.

The day was a massive defeat for both Ukip and Tommy Robinson’s new Advance UK party, thanks to the actual activists, and the pathetically low turnout by Ukip and Advance. There have been some heated words following the Newcastle event, and SUtR’s response is simple: clamp down even harder on dissent. The whole north-east region of SUtR is in turmoil.

This is the time to create a new anti-racist and anti-fascist movement - not only there, but across the whole of Britain.

Alan Theasby
Middlesbrough