Palestine policy - a surprise for the SSP
Arguably the most surprising development at the recent SSP conference was the decision on Palestine. At last year’s SSP conference, there was a serious debate on Palestine. I moved a motion which was agreed but in heavily amended form.
Many activists in the SSP have the political background of Militant, which traditionally had very bad positions on Palestine; effectively neutral in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Oddly, despite the fact that the ex-Militant forces in Scotland had recently split between the ISM and CWI loyalists, on this issue the two ex-Militant groups had basically the same position. They had both shifted to some extent, in that they now supported the struggle of the Palestinians taking place in the West Bank and Gaza, and opposed the Oslo Agreement.
However, they had not thought through their theoretical positions. They were still calling for a 2-state solution, "a socialist Palestine alongside a socialist Israel", and opposed describing Israel as a "settler state".
They seemed to think the problems with Israel and Zionism only started with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the Six Day War in 1967.
This year’s conference debated a motion from the North-East Fife branch (with some amendments accepted) which took an unambiguously pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist position, calling for "a secular Palestinian state in which all peoples regardless of religion have equal rights".
It condemned "the violence inflicted by the terrorist state of Israel on the Palestinians", called for an end to the Israeli law of return and for the right to return of Palestinian refugees, funding of places for Palestinian students at Scottish universities by the Scottish Parliament, condemned Zionism as a racist ideology while also condemning anti-Semitism, and supported the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Although it was pointed out by the chair and some speakers against the motion that this would overturn the policy adopted last year, conference passed the motion, not overwhelmingly, but clearly enough without a count.
I spoke in favour, arguing that to accept the legitimacy of Zionism was to accept the legitimacy of ethnic cleansing as a solution to ethnic and national conflicts, which was the thin end of a very thick wedge in relation to conflicts in a number of parts of the world.
Some speakers against the motion had pointed out that there was an Israeli working class, I said that here in Scotland we had taken up the Chhokar case even though this might offend sections of the white working class; we should not condone recent suicide bombings, but we should not equate the violence of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor.
One speaker from a Jewish background pointed to the injustice where he would be able to move to Israel, but Palestinian refugees who came from the place would not.
This policy shift was clearly due to some extent to an influx of new members in the Socialist Worker Platform. I am not sure if they were originally behind the motion, but a number spoke for it.
Activists in the SSP and Palestine Solidarity Campaign should ensure that this victory is properly built on over the coming year.