Facebook Instagram Twitter YouTube

Israeli offensive against the Gaza Strip An eternal conflict?

Israeli offensive against the Gaza Strip An eternal conflict? The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians seems to be doomed to be eternal. The conclusion is deduced from the experience of numerous failed attempts at negotiation, during the 66 years of existence of the State of Israel. About that, the journalist Marcelo Cantelmi indicated that the […]

Left Voice

July 18, 2014
Facebook Twitter Share

Israeli offensive against the Gaza Strip

An eternal conflict?

The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians seems to be doomed to be eternal. The conclusion is deduced from the experience of numerous failed attempts at negotiation, during the 66 years of existence of the State of Israel. About that, the journalist Marcelo Cantelmi indicated that the 1993 Oslo peace accords, that were promoting the two-state solution, were the most daring attempt at negotiation, that started “real hopes,” which failed to prosper because in 1996, the Labor Party, headed by Shimon Peres, lost the elections, faced with Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud. “If Peres had remained in office, the Oslo accords would have continued” (Clarín, July 12). Cantelmi’s statement is incorrect. Shortly before those elections, Peres ordered Operation Grapes of Wrath, a 16 day offensive against Hezbollah with hundreds of bombardments of Lebanon, unmasking Peres’ alleged pacifist vocation. In reality, the Oslo peace accords were a fraud, to the detriment of the interests of the Palestinian people, that were only intended to reduce the pressure of the turbulent winds of the First Intifada (1987-1993), a profound rebellion of the masses that cracked the Zionist occupation.

Signed by Bill Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, the Oslo accords created the current Palestinian National Authority (PNA), in those days a government with jurisdiction over a third of the Palestinian territories that were under Israeli military administration. Under the ruse of progressively extending the government of the PNA, the agreement kept the lack of definition of the main Palestinian demands: the right of return, the establishment of the capital city in East Jerusalem, and the borders of the State of Israel, an historic capitulation, as the late and famous Palestinian intellectual, Edward Said, denounced well.

Obviously, that lack of definition was not accidental. From the extreme right up to the Zionist left, they never accepted the right of return of the 8 million Palestinians that are living in the diaspora, predominantly in refugee camps of other Arab countries, after their expulsion in May 1948, during the Nakba. The flux of that multitude would threaten the demographic equilibrium on which the Zionist state is founded, supported on a Jewish majority that establishes national oppression over the Palestinian minority, beginning with an army of occupation. In the same way, the demand for the capital city was making an abstraction of the resolution of the former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who in 1980 designated Jerusalem the “sole and undivided capital of the Jewish state,” extending the colonies over the Arab eastern zone, colonies that had already begun to gain momentum after the 1967 Six Day War, through the army occupation. The State of Israel is the only state in the world that does not possess fixed borders, since, given its colonialist nature, it is permanently in expansion.

The murder of Rabin in 1995, at the hands of a settler, swept away the empty verbiage of those accords, ushering in the Israeli regime’s political drift towards the right, decimating the old liberal pacifist movements, tied to the Zionist left.

Thus, with the support of the US and the UN, these accords provided a cover for corrupting Fatah and the PLO, as agents of the occupation (co-opted by the financial contributions of the US) and extending the Jewish colonization of Palestine to 82% of its historic territory. Without territorial unity, Gaza and the West Bank are now two completely broken up pieces of land. Since 2007, the State of Israel has blockaded Gaza by air, sea and land, with the collaboration of the government of Egypt, that conveniently controls the Rafah crossing, while more than 60% of the population depends on humanitarian assistance. Occupied by 500,000 Jewish settlers armed to the teeth, on half of its area, the West Bank is crossed by the 700 kilometer long Apartheid Wall, plus hundreds of Israeli army checkpoints that are choking the small Palestinian villages in an archipelago of unconnected bantustans.

Historically, the State of Israel never intended to consider the demands of the Palestinian people. In his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, the Israeli historian Ilan Pappé describes how already in 1935 (13 years before the Nakba), the Zionist strategist David Ben Gurion maintained that only a small minority of Palestinians could remain to assure the development of a Jewish state, and the rest had to be “transferred” to other Arab countries. Obviously, the existence of that racist and colonialist state is the real obstacle that conspires against the legitimate aspirations for peace between Arabs and Jews and the full right of the Palestinian people to national self-determination in all their historic territory.

Facebook Twitter Share

Left Voice

Militant journalism, revolutionary politics.


The Unknown Paths of the Late Marx

An interview with Marcello Musto about the last decade of Marx's life.

Marcello Musto

February 27, 2022

The Critical Left in Cuba

Frank García Hernández discusses the political and economic situation in Cuba and the path out of the current crisis.

Frank García Hernández

February 27, 2022

Nancy Fraser and Counterhegemony

A presentation from the Fourth International Marxist Feminist Conference.

Josefina L. Martínez

February 27, 2022

Who is Anasse Kazib?

Meet the Trotskyist railway worker running for president of France.

Left Voice

February 27, 2022


Protesters gather during a demonstration on Place de la Concorde in Paris on March 17, 2023, the day after the French government pushed a pensions reform using the article 49.3 of the constitution. - French President's government on March 17, 2023 faced no-confidence motions in parliament and intensified protests after imposing a contentious pension reform without a vote in the lower house. Across France, fresh protests erupted in the latest show of popular opposition to the bill since mid-January.

Battle of the Pensions: Toward a Pre-Revolutionary Moment in France

President Macron's use of article 49.3 to push through an unpopular pension reform bill has opened up an enormous political crisis that has changed the character of the mobilizations against the French government. We are entering a "pre-revolutionary moment" that can change the balance of power between the classes in France.

Juan Chingo

March 21, 2023

20 Years Since the U.S. Invasion of Iraq: A Reflection from a Socialist in the Heart of Imperialism

A Left Voice member and anti-war activist reflects on the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and how he learned to hate U.S. imperialism.

Sam Carliner

March 20, 2023

It is Possible to Win: The Pension Reform Crisis in France

A French socialist reflects on the way forward after Macron invites Article 49.3 to pass pension reform.

Paul Morao

March 20, 2023

“We are your economy”: Trans Youth Walkout and Speak Out

The following is a speech by a young trans person as part of an action called for by NYC Youth for Trans Rights.

Tatiana Cozzarelli

March 20, 2023