'Socialist Israel' I
Dave Murray's letter (Write On, GLW #489), replying to Shane Bentley, misses the point of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He calls for a "socialist confederation of the Middle East". I would like to see more than just a socialist federation of the Middle East; I'd like to see a worldwide socialist society. However, that does not answer the question: in the present struggle between the oppressor (the Israeli state) and the oppressed (the Palestinian nation), which side do you stand on?
Murray claims that the call for a democratic, secular state in all of Palestine is "unrealistic" as such a state "would not guarantee the rights of the Jewish people". But the political and civil rights of Jews are not denied in even such far from fully democratic, secular states as Australia and the USA, so why does Murray think they would be in a fully democratic, secular state of Palestine?
Murray calls for a "socialist Israel in a socialist confederation of the Middle East". Is this because — like the Zionists — he believes that Jews need their own state to not be persecuted? If so, does that mean he would opposed the right of return of Palestinian refugees, as the Zionists do. What sort of "socialist" society would have close borders? And if not, then why does he believe there is a need for a separate "socialist Israel" from a "socialist Palestine", if Palestinians should be free to emigrate to this "socialist Israel"?
Fred Fuentes
Perth
'Socialist Israel' II
Committee for a Workers' International supporter David Murray's letter (Write On, GLW #489) left me bemused rather than almost amused. His evenhandedness betrays a bias — a pro-Zionist bias. I have yet to meet a Marxist who can show where Lenin put an oppressed people and an oppressor people on an even footing.
Murray calls for a "socialist Israel"? What then happens to the million or so Palestinian "citizens" of Israel; where are their rights? What happens to the almost four million Palestinian refugees; what about their rights?
A "socialist Israel"? — along which borders: 1947, 1948, 1967, 1974? And is there a call for the dismantlement of settlements in the Occupied Territories?
A "socialist Israel"? — but one built on the foundations of Zionist colonialism and maintained by imperialism?
Sorry David, your CWI political line doesn't wash.
Michael Schembri
Bondi Junction NSW
Book review
I appreciated Jim Green's review of my book, Running From the Storm (GLW #489), and would like to make two points in response.
Firstly, I do believe that a properly defined and enforceable emissions trading system is the best method of cutting global emissions simply because it would be the cheapest. Cutting the cost of cutting emissions will make it easier to overcome corporate resistance to emission reductions much deeper than have so far been contemplated.
But, as I have stressed, such a system must be targeted at real cuts and be free of loopholes. The instance Jim gives of Ugandan farmers being ripped off is an example of a loophole rather than a problem with emissions trading as such. I am opposed to all methods of displacing emission reduction activity onto developing countries.
Secondly, Jim characterises my thesis as "capitalism without the carbon". This is fair enough. But Running From the Storm is a book about climate change and, in my view, climate change is too serious a threat to be left until "after the revolution".
Besides, if Jim wants to know my views on 'capitalism without the profit motive' he will have to wait for my next book.
Clive Hamilton
Canberra
Parliamentary terms
I think there are just a few problems that should not be swept under the carpet should the Howard government decide it wants four-year parliamentary terms.
The as-yet-unresolved "children overboard" matter is a major objection. This government was re-elected on a shameful and cruel lie. It is not a legitimate government.
It also put this country into a war without consulting with the wider community. We will be paying for this war with cuts to health and education spending, as well as with our lives. Then there is the needless and draconian anti-terrorist legislation that threatens our civil liberties.
This is a government that cannot be trusted and should not be given a longer term.
Willy Bach
Brisbane
Stem-cell research
Why has the federal government put limits on stem-cell research?
Every human entity does not have a "right to life". Ethics involves promoting the specific interests of individual beings — not acting on the basis of species membership.
Having never been sentient, embryos lack interests. Development into an adult is not "good" for an embryo because there is no psychological connection between the two.
As philosophers Derek Parfit and Michael Tooley have argued, psychological connectedness, not mere physical continuity, is critical when considering ethical matters relating to personal identity over time.
In any case, new embryos available for destructive research would be destined not to develop, being either IVF "spares" or embryos created purely for research.
Given the potential of embryonic research to help badly-off people, it constitutes a decent allocation of resources. And unless we are prepared to ban all the obviously inferior forms of community expenditure there is certainly no justification for legislative restriction of such research.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere NSW
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, May 1, 2002.
Visit the