I would argue that you can't have left wing ethno-nationalism.
I don't think Israel turned fascist overnight, I think the contradiction at the heart of the Zionist project has been dragging them in that direction for a long time. And there are still non-fascist things about Israel. There's an attenuated version of democracy, there are liberal institutions, Israelis still have some right to protest. But it's not really up for debate that there are overtly fascist people at the heart of the present Israeli government, and that in a situation where that government is engaged in ethnic cleansing and not bothering to pretend otherwise there aren't any meaningful checks and balances in place.
Labour party under Harold Wilson did think you can have left wing ethno nationalism. The golden years of Labour party and Israel were under Wilson. Israel was one thing that he was idealistic about.
Good article here read last week here:
This was when Israel was run by Labour Zionism. People like Wilson genuinely believed that Israel was building democratic socialism in the middle east. Making the desert bloom.
Yet this was a form of ethno nationalism with a democratic socialist tinge to it. For Palestinians at the time their were no meaningful checks or balances. They simply were not part of the picture.
(Post war Atlee government were not so enthusiastic - this is not something I know much of. But Wilson was not happy with Atlee government re Israel. )
Its a line that Starmer has picked up and run with.
Article has picture of Golda Meir and Wilson at the Socialist International.
Not saying this is good. It was how Israel was seen and how it is seen by sections of the Labour party. Margaret Hodge complaint about Corbyn and his support of Palestinians was that this was not the party she first joined. Which it was not.
I was listening to a Palestinian being interviewed a while back. The distinctions between more liberal versions and more right wing versions of Zionism he scoffed at. Ethnic cleansing has been going on since Zionism first built the state. Regardless of which wing of Zionism is in charge.
The 67 war brought Gaza and West Bank under Israeli control. The fudge was to retain it as occupied territories. But make life so unpleasant for the now stateless non persons ( Palestinians ) that they would leave "voluntarily". Secondly to build settlements. An age old Zionist tactic to gain ground. So direct ethnic cleansing was replaced by incremental.
The third thing was the "Peace process". The more "pragmatic" Zionists knew that direct ethnic cleansing was not on the cards in 67. But a peace process whilst building illegal settlements would work. Than facts on the ground would mean increased Israeli annexation of land without actually formally doing it.
Knowing full well the international community would not do more than voice criticism of this.
The "Peace process" would give international community another fig leaf to hide behind.
This policy does have contradictions - can Palestinians be kept in this position as non persons for ever? Can a form of Apartheid be a permanent solution?
The hope in 67 is that gradually they would leave.
This largely did not happen. The better off did go to Canada etc. But the demographic problem for Zionist state has not gone away.
Nor has resistance.
The Hamas attack was a shock to Israel. This was not supposed to happen.
At the heart of all the Israel governments has been the Zionist project. Which does not include Palestinians as equal citizens in any Israeli state.
Yes the Netanyahu government contains those who openly talk about the human animals etc but the process of removing Palestinians - treating them as non persons to be policed- has been going on since Israel began.
Read this interesting quote from Moshe Dayan - one of the Zionists who said it how it is- in 56 at funeral of IDF soldier killed by Palestinian in the border wars said the following:
What can we say against their terrible hatred of us? For eight years now, they have sat in the refugee camps of Gaza and have watched how, before their very eyes, we have turned their land and villages, where they and their forefathers previously dwelled, into our home … Let us take stock with ourselves. We are a generation of settlement and without the steel helmet and the gun’s muzzle we will not be able to plant a tree and build a house. Let us not fear to look squarely at the hatred that consumes and fills the lives of hundreds of Arabs who live around us. Let us not drop our gaze, lest our arms weaken. That is the fate of our generation. That is our choice—to be ready and armed, tough and hard—or else the sword shall fall from our hands and our lives will be cut short.
page 240 An Army like no Other.
His words of 1956 are as relevant now to Israeli position as they were then. Moshe Dayan - military leader and politician was one of the more candid Zionists.
Acknowledges that the hatred has a rational basis. He is one of the more surprising characters in the history of Zionism as occasionally said in public what was normally said more privately.
