Now supporters of two states are unacceptable to some “pro Palestine” campaigners
A talk held by an ex-leader of the Israeli Labour Party leader and ex-Shin Bet commando has been smashed up at Kings College London by the group calling itself Action Palestine:
It is not clear whether or not the protesters were aware that that the speaker, Ami Ayalon, is a prominent supporter of a 2-state solution based on the 1967 borders and an end to the occupation. His solution (‘The People’s Voice’) is not quite what some of us here at Shiraz advocate but it’s clearly not the handiwork of some evil colonialist you’d want to run out of town:
“The key proposals of the initiative are:
Two states for two peoples.
Borders based upon the June 4, 1967 lines.
Jerusalem will be an open city, the capital of two states.
Palestinian refugees will return only to the Palestinian state.
Palestine will be demilitarized.”
It’s fast becoming a “mainstream” position amongst those who claim to be “pro Palestinian” that the only acceptable position to hold is for the total destruction of the state of Israel.
Shiraz Socialist 
Glasgow Working Class said,
January 20, 2016 at 8:54 pm
Israel should have taken this unique opportunity while the muslims are slaughtering each other to remove the Palestinian Islamic fascists entirely.
Once the troubles have settled in goodness me how many years the Islamists will turn to Israel again. A missed opportunity that Israel will regret.
Steven Johnston said,
January 21, 2016 at 9:16 am
Student protesters smash a window? Hold the front page!
Though I would laugh if the chappie waving the Palestinian flag claimed to be socialist or progressive. Doesn’t he realise how reactionary nationalism, of any stripe, is.
charliethechulo said,
January 21, 2016 at 9:18 am
The significance is not the smashing of a window (a minor matter), but the fact that the protest was against a supporter of two states.
Steven Johnston said,
January 21, 2016 at 1:04 pm
It’s a free country, they can protest against what they like.
Scott Reeve said,
January 21, 2016 at 12:05 pm
I thought all Marxist socialists were against all capitalist and pre-capitalist states. Particularly religious ones.
Steven Johnston said,
January 21, 2016 at 1:06 pm
Spot on Scott, you sound as if you’ve actually read and understood Marx. We don’t take sides, unless it’s the side of the working class. Neither Palestine or Israel are anything but capitalist states. Why on earth would be back either side?
ZINR said,
January 21, 2016 at 1:13 pm
A single state of Palestine, encompassing all of Israel, run by Islamic Fascists, has long been the default aim of all UK and European “pro-Palestine” campaigns, amongst them PSC, Respect and StWC (as led by your mate Corbyn). They haven’t ever really been ambiguous about it.
“Palestinian solidarity”, particularly in the UK, is a rotten business; a safe haven for religious fascists, Holocaust revisionists and violent thugs who just plain hate Jews. Nothing has changed (except for Corbyn now suddenly pretending to support two states, in line with long-established Labour Party policy – though only on the condition that the Israelis live on their knees, in vastly reduced numbers, and submit to the every whim of the fascist Hamas, of whom nothing is required).
As long as the history of the region and the aims of Palestinian leaders are distorted/lied about by the likes of The Guardian, Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn and the Respect Party, people will be able to publically justify this revolting position. Fuck “Palestinian solidarity”, fuck “anti-Zionism”, fuck the endless parade of excuses that moronic thugs on the Far Right and Far Left churn out to justify their hatred of Jews.
Steven Johnston said,
January 21, 2016 at 2:47 pm
“A single state of Palestine, encompassing all of Israel, run by Islamic Fascists, has long been the default aim of all UK and European “pro-Palestine” campaigns, amongst them PSC, Respect and StWC (as led by your mate Corbyn). They haven’t ever really been ambiguous about it.”
Yet, these groups have less chance of establishing this state, assuming what you say is true, than I have of breaking the land speed record in me Honda civic.
Though I agree the PSC and these other groups are vile, when I was a Unison international officer I never affilated my branch to the PSC and always Unison to disaffiliate from the PSC. But I reiterate my point, workers should not takes sides in this dispute, we should not support the two-state, one-state etc solution but only the socialist one.
ZINR said,
January 21, 2016 at 3:44 pm
These fascist scum may be insignificant in terms of the conflict itself – of course no Israeli government is likely to be influenced by a shower of shit-thick anti-Semites posing outside a London University – but it is genuinely worrying that one of their foremost representatives is now leader of the Labour Party.
Corbyn has been great at excusing away anti-Semitic violence in the name of “Palestinian solidarity” in the past – when these playschool-Nazis trashed Stamford Hill during the 2009 Gazan war he was their most high profile cheerleader, making stirring speeches about their “right to protest” (i.e. their right to smash Jewish businesses and places of worship to smithereens) – what are British Jews supposed to do with the prospect of official government support for anti-Semitic violence in future?
ZINR said,
January 21, 2016 at 3:48 pm
…incidentally, regarding the constant appeals for a “return to 1967 borders”: does anyone genuinely believe that giving the Golan Heights back to Syria would have any sort of positive effect on anyone, ever? Or is it just seen as an appropriate punishment for the Israelis, in that it will weaken their defences?
Just curious about what the plan is for the Golans once it falls back into the hands of Fascist butchers…
Glasgow Working Class said,
January 21, 2016 at 7:06 pm
Israel would need to have a bad day if it gave up the Golan. Israel was attacked 1967 and the attackers lost so they have to forfeit what was lost. You never give up territory as it allows the enemy to move forward towards you without a fight.
Steven Johnston said,
January 21, 2016 at 4:28 pm
LOL…does anyone here seriously believe that Corbyn will instituite a progrom?
ZINR said,
January 22, 2016 at 9:35 am
Nope, just concerned that the next time other people institute one (it happens every time there’s war in Gaza, for a start, and let’s face it, that’s bound to happen again at some point) he will make excuses for them and lend credibility to their abhorrent plans.
Steven Johnston said,
January 22, 2016 at 12:43 pm
But are you saying there is a correlation between the two? That they only carry out these acts because they know they are going to get support for them? Strange, who played the Corbyn and STwC role when Kristallnacht happened? You seriously blaming the left and the labour party for that too?
Though, it is odd for the STwC to be anti-Israel, I mean if they are Stalinists that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_shipments_from_Czechoslovakia_to_Israel_1947-1949
Steven Johnston said,
January 21, 2016 at 11:08 pm
Free, free Palestine ad nauseam.
What a ****ing boring chant!
ZINR said,
January 22, 2016 at 9:36 am
PSC prefer “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, i.e. from the Jordan to the Med, Palestine and no Israel, i.e. no Israel at all, and therefore no Jews in the Middle East.
(Corbyn has been a prominent PSC spokesman and promoter for years and years btw)
Ben said,
January 22, 2016 at 4:31 am
Ami Ayalon was a Navy commando, head of the Navy, head of the Shin Bet and a Labour party Member of the Knesset (MP).
As far as I recall the Geneva Initiative did not require that Palestine refugees only return to the Palestinian state, but countenanced some Arabs refugees being resettled in Israel. It said nothing about Jewish refugees from Jerusalem and the West Bank in the 1948 war or about Jewish refugees from the Arab countries in the period that followed. And it made no demands that the Palestinian state allow Jews to continue residing in its territory, but tacitly accepted that they all be uprooted and that the Arab state become Jew-free. Altogether, an extraordinarily good deal for the Arabs, the side that was the aggressor and loser of the 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars.
seditionsquare said,
January 23, 2016 at 8:33 pm
‘”KCLAP had planned to challenge Ami Ayalon and inform the audience of his complicity in the torture of Palestinians as former head of the Shin Bet and the problems surrounding his current views – as is within our rights and detailed on our blog.
“Our intention was to attend the event and shed light on Ayalon’s crimes and views through deliberation.”
KCLAP did, however, acknowledge the event “escalated into a disruption” which “was beyond our control and not incited by any member of our committee.” The group said: “KCLAP is not connected and does not control the actions of external attendees.”‘
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/king-s-college-london-launches-urgent-investigation-after-pro-israel-event-attacked-by-pro-palestine-a6825116.html
Jim Denham said,
January 23, 2016 at 9:55 pm
That makes attacking a supporter of two states OK?
Steven Johnston said,
January 24, 2016 at 4:14 pm
Yes.
seditionsquare said,
January 23, 2016 at 10:11 pm
That presupposes that he was attacked for being a supporter of two states, rather than being attacked for being a member of the Israeli military, security and administrative apparatus (and all the violent things it has done). But no, I don’t think attacking anyone is ‘OK’.
Jim Denham said,
January 24, 2016 at 12:55 am
The point is, that the attackers weren’t concerned that he’s a supporter of two states – or (at worst) attacked him *because* of that.
seditionsquare said,
January 24, 2016 at 9:28 am
My point is that the ‘Action Party’ being blamed for violence are also condemning it and trying to get their point of view across – that Ami Ayalon is part of a machine that kills innocent people and undermines any honest solution. It is worth considering that a lot of people don’t agree with a ‘two state solution’, think that it has already been rendered impractical by the settling programme anyway, or think that it is just empty rhetoric. The article and the comments here don’t seem to appreciate any of that.
Jim Denham said,
January 24, 2016 at 4:35 pm
Two states is the only possible just solution, and is supported by Israeli progressives like Gush Shalom and Peace Now and by the PLO/Fatah: and the morons who attacked Ami Ayalon either don’t know this (in which case they’re ignorant) or don’t care (in which case they’re ignorant *and* anti-Semitic).
Steven Johnston said,
January 24, 2016 at 8:04 pm
Like when they split India into India and Pakistan?
seditionsquare said,
January 24, 2016 at 7:11 pm
Given that you don’t know why violence broke out, it’s presumptuous to call it ‘anti-semitic’ (moronic though it may be). I also have no idea why you think two states is “the only possible just solution”, and why subscribers should apparently be immune to criticism and accountability.
Steven Johnston said,
January 25, 2016 at 9:42 am
What violence? A window got broke, big whoop. I agree about the two states solution, why would socialists support the dividing of some disputed territory into two capitalist states? Both would be very reactionary to boot. I thought we were also against theocracies?
seditionsquare said,
January 25, 2016 at 6:45 pm
Even if it didn’t involve harming people, it’s still violence and moronic. I don’t question that. What’s more troubling is the use of the term ‘anti-semitic’ (which now seems to mean ‘anti two-state solution’) to describe it, and to attribute violence freely to a group which has itself denounced it. I realise that no one on the Internet is going to agree about Israel or Palestine, but some things are beyond the pale.
Political Tourist said,
January 25, 2016 at 2:19 am
I dread to think at what point the AWLs “Two Nations theory” would kick in, in a Scottish context.
Steven Johnston said,
January 25, 2016 at 9:22 pm
I rather think smashing a window pales into insignificance when you consider the level of violence that both sides in that conflict exhibit.