Markus Lehner
Hardly any issue is currently as polarising within the Left Party as the question of solidarity with Palestine, its position on Israel and, in this context, antisemitism. In fact, these areas of conflict point to a deeper problem: the party’s stance on anti-imperialism.
For parties that play a parliamentary role in countries such as Germany, the question of anti-imperialism – regardless of how much emphasis they otherwise place on their “left-wing reform policies” – determines whether they are truly oppositional or whether they are pillars of the ruling system. Parties such as the Greens (and, over a century ago, the SPD) show how quickly one can go from opposing the system and “marching through the institutions” to becoming mouthpieces for NATO rearmament and unconditional propagandists for imperialist policies. In their Middle East policy, both parties compete with the CDU/CSU to see who can most consistently defend unconditional solidarity with Israel, which has been declared a matter of national interest.
Erfurt party programme
In the chapter “Imperialism and War” of its still valid party programme (Erfurt, 2011), the Left Party clearly attributes economic and military power to the imperialist centres and warlike conflicts to the geopolitical goals of the competing great powers. It also denounces the aggressive character of NATO and other imperialist agencies. Among other things, it calls for the “dissolution of NATO” and the withdrawal of the Federal Republic of Germany from such “security alliances”. The fact that such positions have been increasingly shaken within the Left Party since the Ukraine war and the “turning point” can be seen in every talk show with left-wing politicians, in the question of sanctions against Russia, or in the crumbling fronts in votes on debt for rearmament. Moreover, the Left Party’s “anti-imperialism” has always been hollow, as it offers no perspective other than fuelling pacifist illusions in bourgeois “peace policy”, “international law” and its enforcement by the United Nations. A perspective of international class struggle and the smashing of the imperialist agencies is naturally absent – as is to be expected from a reformist party.
Two-state solution as a programme
However, the Palestinian question is an important lever for undermining anti-imperialist positions that stand in the way of participation in government at the federal level. This became particularly clear in a detailed speech given by Gregor Gysi in 2008 on the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, which can now be found as a feature article ‘The Left Party’s position on the State of Israel’ on their website.
In it, Gysi explains in detail why he does not consider “anti-imperialism” suitable for determining Die Linke’s position on Israel – and why he rejects “anti-Zionism” as a political project, even though he does not find Zionism “particularly appealing”. Gysi narrows “anti-imperialism” down to “solidarity with national liberation movements”.
He considers the history of such movements to be over and their “offshoots” such as Hamas or Hezbollah to be nothing that still contains the former progressive content of such liberation movements. He does acknowledge the historical context of a colonisation project under imperialist protection (first Britain, then the USA) and the function that Israel had for the world power interests of the USA in the region. For Gysi, however, this is secondary, since securing Israel’s existence would have been impossible without the protective function of the USA. The crux of the matter thus remains the question of the “right to exist” and “Germany’s raison d’état” – both of which are discussed in detail in the essay. Ultimately, he argues, the reactionary, colonialist perspective of Zionism (which, as Gysi admits, was also violent in the new colonies) prevailed over the more progressive position of Jewish anti-Zionism in the face of the murderous force of European antisemitism – only through a separate Jewish nation state could the existence of Jewish life be secured. This is also the reason for the rejection of a one-state solution in Palestine: “Anyone who wants only one state for Jews and Palestinians with a democratic structure would be accepting that the Palestinians would constitute the majority, occupy everything, and that the persecution, oppression, and pogroms against Jews, as they have been for thousands of years, would begin again and could not be prevented”.
According to this logic, that only a majority Jewish state would ensure the survival of Jews in the region – with the assumption that antisemitism would “naturally” prevail among the Palestinian population as it does in Europe – the “right to exist” is defined as an exclusively Jewish right that subordinates the Arab population in the State of Israel. This could only be resolved “without apartheid” through an ethnically segregated two-state solution. In the debate surrounding the Erfurt Programme of 2011, heated discussions about antisemitism were ultimately settled by incorporating Gysi’s logic into the programme: since then, the Left Party has committed itself in its programme to defending Israel’s “right to exist” and to a two-state solution. Of course, the failure to implement the two-state solution also means that criticism of apartheid and the suppression of Palestinian rights is covered by the programme, as are all possible “peace initiatives” for the now increasingly illusory two-state solution. However, the prospect of a multi-ethnic, democratic, joint statehood for Jewish, Arab, Druze and all other people in the region of Palestine is rejected from the outset in view of the alleged necessity of Jewish statehood. In doing so, the programme also blocks the socialist perspective of overcoming national and ethnic barriers through internationalist proletarian class politics in Palestine and the Arab world. It also rejects the very possibility of breaking up the reactionary Zionist bloc in Israel and at the same time rules out any discussion of a democratic constitution for a Palestinian state that would also guarantee the rights of all national and religious communities, including minority rights for the Jewish nation.
Yes to Israel, yes to Israel’s ‘protection’ …
With this fundamental point of unconditional recognition of a purely Jewish state (within whatever borders), the unconditional nature of the “protective functions” for this state is also more or less recognised. Even though Gysi recognises the self-interest of the USA (and also of the post-war Federal Republic of Germany) as a questionable element, he believes that in this case the “wrong” basis should be exploited to achieve the right end – even if the concept of “reasons of state” is questionable, the good end, in Adorno’s sense, to do everything possible to prevent Auschwitz from happening again is more important. In this respect, Gysi considers the latter of the three pillars of German foreign policy that Die Linke must face up to in a coalition government (or in tolerating one) – “Atlantic partnership”, European integration, Israel’s existence as raison d’état – to be the one that is most acceptable. However, within the framework of recognising this right to exist, any criticism of apartheid policies, racist excesses, military actions, etc. is necessary and permissible.
… ‘Solidarity’ – only within this framework!
The statements and political activities of the Left Party leadership, but ultimately all party conference resolutions on the current Gaza war, also fall within this spectrum. In the resolution on Gaza adopted at the last party conference, ‘Stop the expulsion and famine in Gaza – implement international law!’, the crimes of the Israeli government and its armed forces in Gaza are clearly named and protests against them are called for:
“As leftists, we participate in solidarity demonstrations for Palestine and provide information about the war and the situation in Palestine and Israel. Our solidarity is with the people in Israel, Palestine and worldwide who are fighting for an immediate end to the war and an end to the occupation and who oppose the ultra-right Netanyahu government, Hamas and the global profiteers.”
It demands that the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Netanyahu be enforced if he comes to Germany on a state visit, and that arms deliveries to Israel be stopped. At the same time, it was “made clear” that cooperation with all forces that threaten or even question Israel’s right to exist is rejected. As is well known, immediately after the party conference, board member Ulrike Eifler, who had hinted at a “one-state solution” in a post, was immediately publicly reprimanded (including by the “Left” Ines Schwerdtner).
Similarly, one of the main internal concerns for the party’s “own” Gaza solidarity demonstration on 19 July is that it does not want any organisations on board that question Israel’s right to exist, or that “Islamic fascists” might even show up at the demonstration. Solidarity with Gaza only extends as far as those affected by the genocide accept the political dictates of the Left Party. The aim is not to create the greatest possible unity in the fight against genocide and German arms deliveries, but to avoid being labelled “antisemitic” by the pro-Zionist German media.
Possibilities and tasks
Overall, however, the election campaign and the influx of new members, especially migrants, have changed the mood within the party – and there could be renewed movement on the Israel-Palestine issue in particular. The change in the definition of antisemitism used by the Left Party – which now at least no longer accuses supporters of the one-state solution of antisemitism across the board – is certainly a sign that the consensus that has existed since 2008 on the one-state question and thus on the specific interpretation of Israel’s “right to exist” as the guarantee of a purely Jewish state can be called into question again.
However, as long as the imperialist protection of heavily armed Israel is recognised as a “necessity” and anti-imperialist resistance in the region is not openly supported (despite all justified criticism of the wrong policies of the leaders of this resistance), “solidarity with Gaza” remains pure lip service. The extent to which the party leadership’s policy fails to go beyond this is demonstrated not least by the fact that nowhere is there any demand for the German imperialist state to lift its ban on all Palestinian organisations.
Furthermore, the Israeli state’s current war policy, legitimised as the “exercise of the right to self-defence”, does not guarantee the long-term existence of Jewish life in the region. It prevents any peaceful settlement with the majority populations living in the region, makes Israel increasingly hated there and dependent on purely military and repressive policies (both internally and externally) – and thus also dependent on the continued support of the United States in particular. This perspective of repression and aggression is not a “madness” of the current right-wing extremist government in Israel, but a necessary consequence of a perspective of securing a purely Jewish, racist and colonialist state at any cost. This has long since thrown all utopias of a two-state solution out the window. The Netanyahu government is instead pursuing a one-state solution that takes the policy of genocidal ethnic cleansing and expulsion to its extreme conclusion. This must be fought with all vehemence. The left wing of the Left Party faces the task of bringing about a real change of course within its party. To do so, however, it must break with all reactionary illusions in the two-state solution and any accommodation to the raison d’état, and stand for a democratic, socialist state in Palestine to which all displaced persons can return and in which all can live as equals, regardless of nationality and religion.