New Road Maps to the Two-State

August 19, 2018

We will be here and you, Palestinians, will be there…Live your lives, improve your economy, create employment. The blocs under Israeli sovereignty will be part of the permanent solution. They will serve as recipients of settlers from outside the major blocs.” (Isaac Herzog)

Ever since the Six Day War in June 1967, innumerable plans have been put forward from the Left, the Right and the Center about what to do with the historic land – and its inhabitants – that suddenly and quite unexpectedly fell under Israel’s control – plans regarding ways to divide sc West Bank up or annex it to Israel, without imperiling the country’s Jewish majority.

A new analysis by Haaretz gives some content for implementing possible Leftist plans in West Bank. At the map by Haaretz  the two-state solution could be achieved with a minimal evacuation of Jews from the West Bank. The suggested numbers are 33 isolated settlements, fewer than 10 000 families and some 46 000 people.


For any Israeli government it is necessary to coordinate its actions with the mainstream settler community. According Fathom approximately 590,000 Jews living beyond the Green Line can be divided into three groups. The first group is the approximate 200,000 Israelis who live in the 12 Jewish neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, which will undoubtedly remain under Israeli sovereignty in any agreement. The second group is some 300,000 settlers who live in the so called ‘settlement blocs,’ located west of the security barrier which are usually very close to the Green Line. The vast majority of these settlements are also likely to remain under Israeli sovereignty. Only the third group, comprising 90,000 settlers – less than 20 per cent of the entire population of those living beyond the Green Line – who live beyond the route of the security barrier, needs to be addressed at the present time.


Leftist approach

The main position of the Zionist Left has been spatial separation between Israelis and Palestinians – “they are there and we are here.”One of the first plans for the West Bank was submitted by then-Labor Party minister Yigal Allon. Allon’s basic idea was to give Israel defensible borders, while not significantly altering the demographic balance of the country. His plan called for Israel to annex most of the Jordan Valley – a ribbon some 15 kilometers in width from the Jordan River to the eastern slopes of the mountain ridge running through the West Bank – to serve as a buffer from attacks from the east. Israel would annex one-third of the West Bank, and give up the other two-thirds. The densely populated Palestinian areas from the mountain ridge to the Green Line would not be annexed, and would either form a Palestinian autonomous region, or – in a later revision of the plan – be confederated with Jordan, and linked to the Hashemite kingdom by a corridor near Jericho.

Allon+ Plan, put forward in 1995 by Benjamin Netanyahu


The guiding principle of Allon plan, as well most plans after that, was to retain the maximum number of settlers inside Israel in the minimal amount of territory. This principle is valid also with Leftist plans during last years.

Former Leader of the Israeli opposition – and Labor/Zionist Union – Isaac Herzog proposed to divide the land between the Israelis and Palestinians. Following a quote from interview of Isaac Herzog in Fathom:

I speak in a very frank and open manner. I believe that Israel must move for peace. We must move towards the division of the land between the Palestinians and us in order to maintain the future of Israel as a Jewish democratic state. We will be here and you, Palestinians, will be there…Live your lives, improve your economy, create employment. The blocs under Israeli sovereignty will be part of the permanent solution. They will serve as recipients of settlers from outside the major blocs.”

Politically, the idea “us here, them there” harkens back to Yitzhak Rabin, who used that as a campaign slogan in 1992. Later former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed a similar unilateral separation in the West Bank. Herzog’s plan seems likely to garner support among the centrist, center-left and even parts of the center-right Israeli voter base.

According Omer Bar-Lev ( MK for the Zionist Union)

If Israel wants to be a democratic state, which it does, then it has to either grant them full citizenship rights, which will subsequently destroy Zionism (one state for two nations) or separate from the Palestinians (two states for two nations). In that case, Israel can keep the Zionist spirit.” His steps include a halt to settlement construction beyond the main settlement blocs, passing a compensation law in the Knesset to grant generous compensation to settlers living outside the blocs who want to settle inside Israel, expanding Area B – the territory in the West Bank where the Palestinians have civil control, and Israel has security control – by another 20%, a move that would necessitate taking 20% from Area C, and the evacuation of some 35,000 settlers living in that part of Area C. Once separation is achieved, Bar-Lev hopes the sides will negotiate a final status deal. His map has Israel ceding 95% of the West Bank, and needing to evacuate a total of 70,000 settlers.

According Israeli NGO Blue White Future  Israel should prepare for a reality of two states for two people,

  • by considering transferring areas east of the barrier to Palestinian control in a gradual, monitored and supervised manner. [Note that this part requires coordination and therefore is optional].
  • by enacting a law that allows for voluntary evacuation, compensation and eventual absorption of settlers presently residing on the eastern side of the security barrier, to encourage settlers who wish to relocate within the green line or within settlement blocs, regardless of whether an agreement with the Palestinians is concluded. and
  • by preparing a national plan for the absorption of the settlers who would relocate to Israel proper, whether before or after an agreement is signed. Such a plan should have urban, vocational, social, psychological and other appropriate components.

mideast peace process alternatives


Some alternatives?

“The one-state solution is not a solution, but a problem.” (Ori Nir)

The alternative plans from the Right range from extending Israeli sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria and encouraging the Palestinians there to leave, to annexing Area C, and giving the 80,000 Palestinians living there Israeli citizenship.

On the far Right of the spectrum is a plan articulated by former Likud MK Moshe Feiglin, who advocates a plan for Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria that includes the following: Annexing all of Judea and Samaria and making sure that Jewish sovereignty extends everywhere. The Arab population would have the following options: Either emigrate voluntarily with the aid of a “generous emigration grant”; receive permanent residency – similar to Green Card status in the US – but be unable to vote.

A different approach has been proposed by Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman. Liberman advocates taking all of the land – excluding Gaza – from the Mediterranean to the Jordan and redividing it along demographic lines. In this plan, large Jewish settlement blocs would be drawn into Israel, and the area of the “Triangle” with its large Israeli Arab population would be penciled into a Palestinian state.

In addition there is the maximalist alternative plans from the Right – annex all of the territories Israel gained during the Six Day War – and also the maximalist plans of the Left: a complete withdrawal from all the territories. Few Israelis, nor I, advocate such a policy, so over the years there have been numerous variations on this theme.

Recently a new approach to the Jewish-Arab/Palestinian conflict was proposed by sc Federation Movement. Its Federation Plan or Federation Program presents a new approach to the Jewish-Arab/Palestinian conflict. The basic idea is

formulation of a common vision for the federal state by establishment of a federal government, and the division of the country into 30 cantons, 20 of which will have a Jewish majority and ten will have Arab majorities (one of which will have a Druze majority). At first place the federation idea sounds interesting as it seems to solve a basic dilemma in Israeli-Palestinian conflict: how Israel same time can survive as a Jewish state, have real democracy and keep – more or less – post-1967 boundaries especially in West Bank.

Sure there is also a zero-alternative, to do nothing else than keep “status quo”.  This alternative, however, is leading towards undemocratic “One-state” solution, which in my opinion is one of the worst scenarios.

Kuvahaun tulos haulle no one-state israel

My View

The final status agreement has been very close at least since Beilin-Abu Mazen understandings/agreement/plan (1995) where nearly all issues were agreed; The Olmert proposal (2008) was probably the last serious try. (both plans can be found from my document library ) The parameters of the end-game have been clear the whole time but despite of a number of negotiations the final agreement is missing.

clinton parameters

As possible solutions for Israeli-Palestinian conflict there has been besides 2-State solution also bi-national ‘One-State’ solution, partial solutions like Sinai and Jordan Options and different variations of ‘Three States’ solutions. One of course easy ‘solution’ is zero-option – ‘frozen conflict’ or ‘status quo’ scenario which can be implemented also through pseudo-talks. Today also unilateral actions – instead vain negotiations – can pave way towards some solutions.

In my opinion democratic One-state, Israel-Palestine federation or confederation based on cantons might work in theory but not in practice at least for decades. My argument is that even since early times of British Mandate first the Pan-Islamic and then pan-Arab rhetoric expressed fundamental ethnic and religious objections to Jews and for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The history of repeated aggressions by neighbours have also created deep distrust among Jews about Palestinians. This kind of ecosystem and peoples’ minds are challenging to transform peaceful coexistence with eternal enemy; it might take decades and generations to change fundamental ethic values. Besides instead of Israel-Palestine federation or confederation I see Palestine-Jordan confederation much more better model.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict roadmaps to peace

I referred two new leftist initiatives above and in my article Constructive Unilateralism: Leftist Approach to Israel-Palestine Conflict‘it’s in our hands’ by Omer Bar-Lev, an MK for the Zionist Union and ‘Constructive unilateralism’ by Blue White Future, leftist think tank – which both in my opinion are steps forward and also to the right direction as well including required new roadmap for better future. I don’t see constructive unilateral steps as goal but more as strategy and process which will lead towards a comprehensive agreement.

The new analysis by Haaretz (How Many Settlers Need to Be Evacuated to Make Way for a Palestinian State ) gives some content for implementing these possible Leftist plans in West Bank.  The map helps to prepare a national plan for the absorption of the settlers inside security barrier; it shows the settlements which will be evacuated from West Bank, it gives the numbers of settlers which helps to plan urban, social, vocational and other needs of operation and to allocate necessary funding and budgeting and all this regardless of whether an agreement with Palestinians is concluded or not. 

Related articles:

Peacemaking – a Holistic Approach

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Revised Hybrid Model as Solution

Palestinians Put Jordanian Option on the Table

Israel-Palestine Conflict: Regional Approach

Israel’s 5 Strategy Options Regarding West Bank After Abbas

Trump Presidency Brings Realpolitik Back To Mid-East

Constructive Unilateralism (II) as Solution to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Herzog’s Plan: Security Barrier Around the Major Settlement Blocs of West Bank

Analysis: Resolving The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The ideal – maybe utopist – long holistic peace process by Ari Rusila

Constructive Unilateralism (II) as Solution to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

October 28, 2016

ISRPALBrig Gen (res.) Michael Herzog has been a participant in nearly all Israeli-Palestinian negotiations since 1993. In his important essay, published in Fathom Journal , he argues that Israeli unilateral actions could later have a two-state solution as outcome.

According Herzog the bilateral Israeli-Palestinian arena looks as bleak, the last effort for negotiated peace – the Kerry-led negotiations in 2013-2014 – collapsed, adding despair on both sides to the prospects of a two-state solution.  The Palestinian Authority (PA) is weak and divided between two political entities, one in the West Bank ruled by Fatah and one in Gaza ruled by Hamas, with the current situation in Gaza resembling a powder keg. On the Israeli side, there is a right-wing coalition, reflecting the reality of Israeli society increasingly turning to the right under the pressure of repeatedly failed peace efforts and Palestinian terror waves. Meanwhile the American role in our region has weakened and the upcoming American elections paralyse potential international initiatives.

Israel and some of the major Arab states have been drawn closer together by strong converging interests, namely the threats of extreme violent Islamist jihadism, an empowered Iranian-led axis, regional instability as a whole and the weakening US role; however, according Herzog, this should be regarded as an opportunity.


Multi-dimensional solutions to multi-dimensional challenges

After 20 years of failed peace efforts, the first thing to realise is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is extremely complex. Simplistic black-and-white characterisations, such as blaming the failure entirely on one party or suggesting that it could be easily resolved if only the leadership were changed, are unhelpful in trying to reach a solution. While Palestinians point to continued Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and to Israel’s security heavy-handedness, Israelis point to repeated Palestinian rejection of Israeli peace offers over the years, the most recent example being the US proposal of parameters in March 2014, which to this day awaits a Palestinian response.

Jordan is Palestine Map low resThere is a natural tendency to single out one specific issue – Israeli settlement policy, Palestinian rejection of recognising Israel’s Jewish character, Palestinian incitement and terror, a return to negotiations, an imposed international plan etc. – and argue that if only that single issue was successfully dealt with, everything else would fall into place.

Herzog writes that

the challenge is multi-dimensional with inter-connected components and needs to be addressed as such. The pieces of the puzzle include the security situation on the ground and future security arrangements in a permanent status solution; Israeli settlement activity and practices; bottom-up processes of laying the foundation and infrastructure on the ground for future Palestinian statehood, including economic development as well as access and movement on the ground; the situation in Gaza and the relationship between Gaza and the West Bank; creating a top-down political horizon – either through negotiations or through laying out parameters on the core issues; and the regional dimension.

Herzog concludes that for now, further bilateral negotiations are not the answer – it is thus time to consider different paradigms. As an Israeli who cares deeply about the future of Israel as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people Herzog believes that

Israel should shape its own future and destiny, not just respond to other parties’ initiatives or external attempted dictates. Because the logic of separating the two communities is in Israel’s interest, the country should signal that direction and start moving towards shaping a two-state reality, preferably with Palestinian partners but also with regional and international actors. Even without a Palestinian partner at this stage, Israel should implement a policy of constructive unilateralism that improves its security situation, maintains the possibility of a two state solution and keeps an extended hand open to the Palestinians to renew negotiations at a later date.


The components

According Herzog this policy should include the following components:

Security – Israel should complete the security barrier between the West Bank and Israel in order to reduce friction between the two sides. While taking security measures against terror attacks, Israel should continue to encourage authorised Palestinian labourers in Israel. Almost all perpetrators of terror attacks have been illegals, and legal Palestinian labour in Israel has proven a stabilising factor.

Cessation of settlement activity beyond the security barrier – Israel should not authorise construction in areas where we assume a future Palestinian state will be established. Israel should try and elicit some form of quiet understanding for strengthening the settlement blocs – areas which are essential to Israel’s security and which are widely acknowledged as being part of Israel in a future agreement (based on territorial swaps).

It is hard to envisage Israel unilaterally removing settlements in the West Bank. Following Israel’s unilateral pull out from Gaza in 2005, which included all settlements, it is highly doubtful that an Israeli leader could remove settlements outside the context of an Israeli-Palestinian comprehensive agreement and survive politically.

Additional Israeli measures towards political separation – There is a public debate in Israel on whether to implement measures separating the two communities in Jerusalem. Tthe current situation in which there is no overlap between the municipal boundaries of the city and the route of the security barrier has bred instability and chaos and should be altered. Herzog would seek to amend the municipal boundaries and adjust the barrier accordingly.

Strengthening the PA’s economic and security capacity – Israel, regional actors and the international community should offer and facilitate (with proper auditing) a significant economic package to boost the PA. Israel should further improve access and movement for Palestinians in the West Bank and upgrade all existing fixed passages. It should also seek to expand its current policy of limiting incursions into area A to security threats the PA cannot or will not deal with.

Area C – In the context of enhancing the PA’s capacity, Israel can and should transfer powers and responsibilities to the PA in Area C (which constitutes about 60 per cent of the West Bank), such as planning, zoning and building adjacent to Area A – even without changing the territory’s legal designation, a task which falls within the purview of the bilateral political negotiations. This was already discussed between the parties and Israel recently announced initial steps in this direction. Israel has also allowed the PA’s police forces to function in Palestinian population centres in Area C and could further expand this.

Palestinian governance – Hand in hand with enhancing the PA’s economic capacity, the international community should pay much greater attention to Palestinian governance. Particular focus should be paid to encouraging a smooth transition to a post-Abu Mazen era, with an eye to preventing it from being chaotic and endangering the stability of the PA.

Establishing a long-term ceasefire in Gaza – Based on the deterrence achieved in the last round of armed conflict in Gaza (2014) Israel should try to achieve a long-term ceasefire arrangement with Hamas in Gaza, involving the PA with an active role in Gaza.

Greater investment in the regional dimension –conditions are now ripe for working together with major Arab countries in order to generate progress between Israelis and Palestinians. Egypt is ready to sponsor such a move. To facilitate such a regional process, Israel has to relate positively to the Arab Peace Initiative, which it has begun to do. Moreover, both Egypt and Jordan could definitely play a role in the security arrangements in Gaza and the West Bank respectively.

While pushing the parties to negotiate currently serves little purpose, creating a political horizon is crucial and should not be neglected. Based on Herzog’s experience, the initial focus should be on defined parameters for negotiating and resolving the core issues that separate the parties. Israelis and Palestinians failed to achieve this bilaterally and are unlikely to succeed in the foreseeable future. Ultimately out of all the existing initiatives currently on the table, the regional approach has the most potential. The parties should be willing to invest in it and the US and Europe should support it.


My view

Michael Herzog’s view to solve Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vell based on his +20 years experience about negotiations between these to parties.  Also from my perspective a new framework is needed, even if some apparent negotiations start the outcome probably will be a placebo to status quo.  I also agree with establishing a long-term ceasefire in Gaza as well with  regional approach:  The best possibilities to develop negotiated peace process might be in a regional peace track proposed by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, in which Egypt would facilitate direct peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians as well as between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Earlier I have referred two new leftist initiatives in my article Constructive Unilateralism: Leftist Approach to Israel-Palestine Conflict  – ‘it’s in our hands’ by Omer Bar-Lev, an MK for the Zionist Union and ‘Constructive unilateralism’ by Blue White Future, leftist think tank – which both in my opinion are steps forward and also to the right direction as well including required new roadmap for better future.

On January 2016, the leader of Israel’s opposition and head of the Zionist Union party Isaac Herzog, unveiled an alternative approach to the issue of Israel’s nearly 49-year old presence in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The main point of Herzog’s plan is, that Israel will complete the security barrier around the major settlement blocs. “We will be here and you, Palestinians, will be there,” Herzog said. “Live your lives, improve your economy, create employment. The blocs under Israeli sovereignty will be part of the permanent solution. They will serve as recipients of settlers from outside the major blocs.” (more in Herzog’s Plan: Security Barrier Around the Major Settlement Blocs of West Bank )

Michael Herzog has doubts about removing settlements from West Bank behind the security barrier while Isaac Herzog and leftist initiatives see it necessary and I agree with them.

From Israeli side unilateral withdrawal and unilateral annexation are the main strategy options related to West Bank. I think that unilateral withdrawal is both feasible and doable; its main benefit might be that Israel can deside it individually.

Cold-Peace-Solution by Ari Rusila

My previous related articles:

Gaza Seaport – A Threat or Change

Israel’s 5 Strategy Options Regarding West Bank After Abbas

Constructive Unilateralism: Leftist Approach to Israel-Palestine Conflict

Herzog’s Plan: Security Barrier Around the Major Settlement Blocs of West Bank

Analysis: Resolving The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Gaza’s Tunnel War Continues On All Fronts

Sinai Option again

Hamas and Israel on Verge of the Deal

Gaza State Under Construction, West Bank Remains Bystander

Gaza Blockade – It’s Egypt not Israel!

Israeli-Palestinian conflict roadmaps to peace

Seeking For The Ukrainian Left

October 1, 2014

While trying to keep myself updated about Ukraine conflict in the middle of polarized one or another side exaggerated informationflow I finally found an interview which looks to be from local grassroots, a balanced analysis based reasonable arguments advocating a view of leftist organization about issues of Ukraine conflict. However as Ukraine’s situation is on a new level of hybrid warfare, a theatre of mediawar with constant disinformation from all sides, I have tried to study a bit the background of the leftist situation in Ukraine.

The ovarall situation in Ukraine has polarized dramatically. The first troops, which Kiev regime sent to East, refused to shoot people they considered fellow countrymen & women. Kiev, by all reports (outside the Corporate Media) changed the composition of the troops, recruiting Rightist volunteers, who seem to have no problem shooting down Russian speaking Ukrainians. In Donbass area as well in wider “Novorossiya” the public attitude against “Kiev Junta” has increased as Kiev government offensive by land troops, air force and artillery has terrorized civilian population.

borotba logo

The interview in question ( “Our struggle is for a socialist Ukraine as part of the struggle for a socialist world” on the end of this article) was made by Peter Mikhailenko and the interviewee was Dimitry Kolesnik who is the editor of the Ukrainian left wing website Liva and a leading activist in the Marxist organization Borotba.


So that no one has any illusions, I want to say that the entire industry in the city will be nationalized. We cannot leave the industrial potential of the city in the hands of unscrupulous businessmen.” (Vyacheslav Ponomarev, the people’s mayor of Slavyansk)

The Association Borotba – “Struggle” – is a revolutionary Marxist–Leninist and anti-fascist organization operating in Odessa and Kharkiv, Ukraine. It has close ties to the Left Front in Russia. The Left Front is a united front encompassing a range of far-left political organizations in Russia, as well as other countries of the former Soviet Union. The task of the Left Front declares ensure unity among all who stand for socialism, democracy and internationalism, and coordination of left-wing opposition forces.

The Association Borotba was established in May 2011 after the merger of a part of the “Organization of Marxists” (Ukraine), the “Leninist Communist Youth Union of Ukraine”, “All-Ukrainian Union of Workers”, the “Youth Association Che Guevara”, and the “Youth against capitalism” movement, with some individual leftist activists also joining.

When in 2012 the first fraction of the far-right party Svoboda entered parliament supported by a number of oligarchic groups, including some close to President Yanukovych, Borotba was the first and the only political force which then predicted that, with the development of the socio-economic crisis, the oligarchy would put ultra-right ideology and organization at its service. That time Borotba published the report, “Ukrainian oligarchy is preparing a ‘creeping’ fascist coup.”

Borotba has condemned what they considered a “Western-backed” and “fascist” February 2014 coup in Kiev and called for a socialist revolution in Ukraine against the government of “ultra-nationalists and Nazis”. Borotba’s analysis of the composition of the so-called “revolutionary” government that took power on 22 February 2014 stated that far-right nationalists received too much power and control over important ministries and agencies including defense, anti-corruption and national security, education, agriculture and the environment, as well as the office of the prosecutor general. (Source e.g: WikipediA )

anti nazi caricature

On May Day Borotba members staged a rally in Kovalska Street in Odessa.The following day, Borotba member Andrey Brazhevsky was beaten to death by a far-right mob after jumping from the third floor of the burning Trade Union Building during the 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes. Following the Odessa Trade Union building massacre and other attacks on Borotba’s members and offices, Borotba was forced underground. (Source WikipediA )

According LiveLeak in the cities of the southeast, there were mass arrests of Antimaidan supporters. The Security Service of Ukraine now searches and arrests Borotba members, their informationmaterials are classified as “separatist” propaganda. Under these conditions, cells of Union Borotba and other left-wing, anti-fascist organizations operate semi-underground. The organization is now able to work only on the network principle — as a network of small, autonomous groups that direct agitation, propaganda and organization, as well as protect themselves from attacks by neofascist combatants.


On March 3, 2014, several liberal and anarchist organizations in Ukraine, including the “Autonomous Workers Union”, the “Direct Action” Independent Student Union and the “Left Opposition socialist organization”, criticized Borotba for alleged cooperation with conservative pro-Russian groups in Ukraine and allegedly spreading “overt lies and fact manipulations, deceiving foreign leftists and antifascists”.

autonomous workers union loge

The split between anarchists and Borotba/AntiMaidan groups seems to be fundamental. When AntiMaidan attacked the Maidan in the city of Kharkiv, its imagined enemy were not the anarchists, but NATO, EU or Western-Ukrainian fascists. However anarchists ended up fighting side by side with liberals and fascists. Borotba and the Russian Left Front claim that they are attempting to do the same things as the anarchists did at Maidan, that is, direct protest towards social demands. The anarchists regard The Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Borotba and the Russian Left Front as part of Soviet chauvinist camp.

In a rebuttal, Borotba rejected the accusations as “hypocritical” and “irrelevant” and stated e.g:

We are not the part of the movement that has nothing common with left and antifascist stance. Thus, we are and have always been a leftwing and antifascist organization. We condemn ex-regime of Yanukovich and the new far-right government as well. We condemn Russian and Western interference in Ukrainian affairs as well as militarist patriotic intoxication induced by new power…We firmly follow internationalist antifascist and class line as our basic stance. We are against both Russian and Ukrainian nationalisms that are being used now only for dividing working class and further plundering of the country. We do not back Russian nationalist organizations as well as Ukrainian ones. All the smear campaign of our organization led by far-right groups and caught up by some admittedly ‘left’ groups will not stop us to organize anti-fascists resistance. (Source: WikipediA )

German leftists seeking for an explanation

Very good description about left wing oraganizations and movements in Ukraine before 2014 can be found from German leftist analysis Die «neue» linke Bewegung in der Ukraine by Vladimir Korobov (Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, April 2013 ). The European Left has different views about situation in Ukraine as well about different leftist organizations there. A debatte related to Ukraine in European Left Summer University gives good description about this: Ukraine dominates discussion at Party of the European Left’s summer university .

The regional coordination office of the German federal Die Linke party distanced itself from Borotba after serious accusations levelled by Ukrainian anarchists. However after studying more closely the background and accusations against Borotba the earlier cooperation has been restored. From Borotba’s point of view The Autonomous Worker’s Union is small sect pretending to be anarchists being invisible in Ukraine but active on international scene. A quote from Sergei Kirichuk/Borotba:Regarding the accusation against us: We are not a “pro-Russian” organization, we are fighting for the rights of the working class, youth and women. Neither Russian nor Ukrainian nationalism is acceptable for us. Our ideology is proletarian internationalism. So we hate oligarchs of Russia and Ukraine. Our partner in Russia is the Left Front, many of their activists are in prisons now and we are showing our solidarity with them. (Source: „They hate us because we are communists“ Interview with Sergei Kirichuk by Andrej Hunko, Germany’s Die Linke. )

die linke logoAndrej Hunko, who is also member of European Parliament, has followed closely different leftist fractions and movements in Ukraine since 2012. His article Zur ukrainischen Linken und der Kampagne gegen „Borotba“ on 09. July 2014 describes how weak Ukrainian left and Communists are splitted between Maidan and Antimaidan supporters:

Die (schwache) ukrainische Linke jenseits der Kommunistischen Partei ist gegenwärtig im Verhältnis zu den Maidan-Protesten und der folgenden Entwicklung in der Ukraine gespalten. Während ein Teil der Linken, insbesondere die „Linke Opposition“, sich positiv auf den Umsturz bezieht und versucht im Rahmen der nachfolgenden Entwicklungen soziale Positionen zu formulieren, bezieht insbesondere „Borotba“ eine grundlegend ablehnende Position zum Maidan. Ebenso wie ein Teil der Linken versucht hatte, auf dem Maidan linke Forderungen aufzustellen, war ein anderer Teil bei den Anti-Maidan-Protesten, insbesondere in Charkov und Odessa, mit linken Positionen vertreten.

Related to campaign (of the “Autonomous Workers Union” and the “Direct Action”) against Borotba Mr. Hunko supports Borotba’s position as follows:

Seit einigen Wochen gibt es in Deutschland eine Kampagne gegen die linke ukrainische Organisation „Borotba“ (Der Kampf), in der unterstellt wird, diese kooperiere mit russischen Neo-Nazis, ja sogar, dass es eine Kooperation der LINKEN mit russischen Neonazis gäbe. Das ist falsch. Die Absicht ist offenbar, eine kritische Position zur Ukraine in die Nähe des russischen Nationalismus zu rücken. Weder gibt es irgendeine Kooperation der LINKEN mit russischen Neo-Nazis oder sonstigen Rechten, noch habe ich irgendwelche Hinweise, dass es diese von Seiten Borotba gibt. Im Gegenteil kooperiert Borotba mit der russischen Linksfront und hat diese gegen Repression unterstützt.

Minsk Declaration

Borotba is also part of the Minsk Declaration(Left forces from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus held a two-day antiwar conference near Minsk on June 7-8.2014). The conference brought together activists of the new left which has grown up in recent years in the three countries, and their main groupings; the Russian Socialist Movement (RSD), the Left Front and the United Communist Party (which has no connection to Putin’s tame “official opposition”, Gennady Zyuganov’s KPRF) in Russia, the Left Opposition and the group Borotba [Struggle] in Ukraine. It was hosted by the Belarussian journal Prasvet. Following some quotes from their joint statement:

We, the participants of the meeting of left and Marxist groups and organizations from Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, believe that the civil war in Ukraine must cease – we see this as a primary task. The military conflict that followed the victory of the neo-liberals and nationalists in the ‘Euromaidan’ actions in Kiev has claimed hundreds of lives and contributed to an unprecedented growth of chauvinism and xenophobia in Ukrainian and Russian society.

We express our solidarity to all participants of the Ukrainian left-wing movements that are fighting against war, nationalism and xenophobia. We consider it necessary to provide them all possible information, political and material support. We oppose the pressure, pogroms and reprisals by all participants of the conflict. We oppose the massacres, torture and abductions of Ukrainian leftists, anti-fascists and all Ukrainian citizens, regardless of their political views. We oppose political persecutions in the Crimea region as well.

We demand from Russia, the EU and the U.S. to completely stop interfering in the Ukrainian conflict and cease support to any one side.

We demand an end to the chauvinist campaigns in Ukrainian and Russian media. Their use of hate speech is one of the main instigators of war.

We demand the adoption of a new Constitution of Ukraine, elections of the authorities of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and a right to self-determination and self-government for Donbass and all the regions of Ukraine.


In my opinion left wing approach could be the internal solution for Ukraine conflict; from my perspective Ukraine needs nationalization instead of nationalism as such a programme could respond same time to economic crisis and ease ethnic tensions. If working class and entrepreneurs of small and middle size companies could join forces against the wealthy parasites and political elite and return the loot to the people by nationalizing it would be possible to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine on the basis of a democratically planned socialist economy.

After above described background I hereby recommend following interview which in my opinion exellent represents Ukrainian leftist postion in context of Ukrainian conflict:

marxist ITN logo

Our struggle is for a socialist Ukraine as part of the struggle for a socialist world”

Written by Dmitry Kolesnik; editor of and member of Borotba Thursday, 25 September 2014

Dimitry Kolesnik (DK) is the editor of the Ukrainian left wing website Liva and a leading activist in the Marxist organization Borotba. He attended the World Congress of the International Marxist Tendency in August 2014 in Greece, where he was interviewed by Peter Mikhailenko(PM).

PM: Could you describe the formation Borotba, and the website, the most popular left website in Ukraine?

DK: First of all, thank you comrades for your invitation and for your support with the campaign of Solidarity with Anti-fascist resistance in Ukraine.

Borotba is a radical left wing Marxist organization. It was formed in 2011 from a split of the “Organization of Marxists”, former KPU youth members, the youth organization “Che Guevara” along with some individual activists including anarchists and environmentalists. Its aim is the struggle for a socialist Ukraine, with the understanding that the struggle for a socialist Ukraine should be connected with the struggle for a socialist world in general.

Also three years ago, the website “Liva” was created, a left wing website. This involved Borotba and other left-wing activists. We have many aspects we try to cover; including economic, social, politics interviews with various left activists and other well-known people. We translate many articles from modern left thinkers, especially Marxist thinkers and articles that cover current of events from a left-wing perspective.

PM: What do you think triggered the Maidan movement?

DK: Euromaidan started the day after the former president Yanukovich delayed the signing of the free-trade agreement with the EU, which was linked to IMF loans with conditions for imposing austerity measures. The day after, protests started by some layers of society, especially in Western Ukraine, where many people move to Western countries to take on precarious jobs. The media never mentions that the EU association agreement had nothing to do with mobility for Ukrainians in the EU or joining the EU. It was merely a free trade agreement, the kind which was signed with Tunisia, Egypt or Turkey, and many other countries that never joined the EU.

I want to emphasize that some Western-funded NGOs played the main role in organizing the movement. Many of their workers and activists prepared for the protests beforehand. Another important part were the far-right and neo-nazi groups. And just a year ago the Western media was often criticizing these groups; now, suddenly, they seem to be hardly noticing them and are whitewashing them, their participation in the new government along with the austerity measures has been covered by an abstract rhetoric about some “European values”.

Some layers of society were deceived by this rhetoric; others were indignant that the government of Yanukovich was responsible for the fall in living standards.

PM: What was Borotba’s attitude towards the former president Yanukovich?

DK: Borotba was critical towards the Yanukovich regime. We understood and predicted in many articles that his politics were rather dangerous. The corruption with the move to liberal capitalism was something evident in his rule. We had organized many anti-government protests during the years of his regime. So we never backed him; we were anti-government last year and we are anti-government this year.

PM: How did Borotba see the Euromaidan movement? The media clearly played a large role in promoting it. What would you say about its character?

DK: There has been a sociological study recently on the Euromaidan movement that was published even in Ukrainian media like UNIAN. The far-right made up about 25%. The others were either moderate right, like supporters of the Batkyvshina or UDAR parties – these were parties not in coalition with the Yanukovich government. A large part were middle class business owners, who were protesting what they called “creeping nationalization” and corruption because the government had raised taxes on them. Those businessmen who participated in Madian among them were either from Kiev or Western Ukraine (70% of the protestors). In fact, we see how the far-right were seen by the other protestors as heroes and their tactics and slogans were tolerated, and they saw this movement as a chance to impose their agenda.

PM: On what basis did the anti-Maidan movement start? How did the anti-Maidan movement go from anti-government protests to armed rebellion?

DK: Anti-Maidan and current rebel forces are connected. Anti-Maidan was a protest in a park near Maidan, composed mainly of supporters of Yanukovich and his government, because it really had some social base. After the victory of Maidan, the Anti-Maidan camp was destroyed and some days after that, there was a witch-hunt of anti-Maidan protesters. Many of them managed to reach their cities, mostly in south-eastern Ukraine, and began to organize protests at home.

Soon after the victory of Maidan, the far-right organized raids on other cities, toppling Soviet-era statues. This prompted some people to organize 24-hour watches around the statues. And as such, rallies around Lenin monuments served as a base for organizing a new protest movement composed of forces opposing Maidan.

These forces contained supporters of the former government, different left-wing activists, communists (due to the rabid anti-communism of Maidan), some ethnic minorities (mostly Russian but also Romanians, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Greeks…). The attempts to impose a nationalist agenda on a multi-ethnic country inevitably caused the uprising of those minorities. There were also many social-racist statements made by Maidan activists towards industrial workers, especially from Donbass, causing their participation in the rebellion.

PM: There has been a lot of talk in the media calling this rebellion a “Russian invasion”, and there has been a lot of criticism of the leadership of the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. How would you characterize the leadership of these republics?

DK: We are speaking about [Donetsk Peoples Republic] DNR and [Luhansk Peoples Republic] LNR as the protest movements in Kharkiv; Odessa and Zaporizhia had different characters. From the leadership of Donbass, we saw the general progressive demands of the people – which in Donbas are characterized by pro-soviet sentiments – and have over the past years developed a specific “Soviet nationality”. Many of those who are characterized as “pro-Russian” actually have pro-soviet sentiments.

As for the leaders, some of them are very conservative, some are Russian nationalists, some are pro-Soviet demanding nationalizations, some were supported by local businessmen who were soon ousted. What we first saw were local deputies who made initiatives to resist Kiev policies. Some like Gubarev entered the local administration building when the crowd stormed it. What I can say about the leadership of the Donbass rebels is that they are there more for their military experience than representing the will of the Donbass people. After the war is stopped, this has a chance of changing. There should be actions held in the regions, because now, the DNR and LNR are various military units that wage war against the government in such conditions that make it impossible to create any kind of real autonomy or republic or federal state.

We recently published an article in Borotba that stated that the leadership should heed the voices of the rank and file rebels or they will be defeated. There were no such no left-wing militants who were able lead the movement when it started. The rebellion can be effective only when it is not connected to one or another national ethic, but to the lower classes in general.

PM: How would you characterize the nature of the current Kiev government and their policies?

DK: We characterize the new government as a coalition of neo-liberals and far-righters. Ukraine has become an outright oligarchic republic, with a semi-dictatorship, where the far right operates with impunity and is used as a tool. The far right gangs are used as tool by the oligarchs to push through their agendas.

We now see that all of the major Ukrainian oligarchs are on the side of the Kiev regime. There were oligarchs appointed as governors in many regions in Ukraine. In such regions as Dnipropetrovsk for example – where Kolomoiskyi was appointed governor – he has funded far-right groups to suppress opponents in his region, and then sent them to suppress the rebellion in Donbas. Effectively he has created a dictatorial fiefdom in the region.

In terms of economics, we immediately saw the escalation of neo-liberal processes, such as the IMF loans. They came with austerity measures attached as a condition, such as freezing of wages, removing subsidies for gas along with other subsidies, rising prices and cuts to social spending. It has recently been announced by Prime Minister Yatsenyuk that the country will undergo the strongest wave of privatization since independence including 38 state mines and many other large industries.

The “Orange revolution” in 2004 and the Euromaidan contained many of the same activists, and we saw after both events the devaluation of the Ukranian currency. The US was constantly pressing Yanukovich to “free” the Ukrainian currency, and what it means is the increase of the real amount of foreign debt.

PM: What are the Russian, US and EU interests in Ukraine?

DK: Those three forces that are present make this, not a conflict of the West against Russia, but a three sided conflict because the US interests and those of the EU are often in conflict. The interest of the EU is the opening of the Ukrainian market for their goods, because the EU is facing an economic crisis and high unemployment. So a new market means some more jobs for the EU. However, Ukraine is one of the poorest post-Soviet countries, so they are not such good buyers of EU goods.

The US interests are a kind of covert war against Russia, moving military bases closer to Russia. And certainly Russia has economic interests connected to its gas, because the majority of Russian state profits come from gas exporting, particularly to EU. Most of these pipelines go through Ukraine, so, by putting a government hostile to Russia in Kiev, the US is simultaneously undermining Russia and the EU. Russia would be left without a large amount of export profits and the EU would be forced to buy gas somewhere else. We have already read that the US is getting ready to export shale gas to EU, in an article in Guardian by Naomi Klein entitled something like “Why US companies are licking their lips over the Ukrainian crisis”. Shale gas from overseas will be more expensive, so here we see an attempt by the US to enlarge their export profits. Also, such companies as Shell and Chevron have started to extract shale gas through fracking in Ukraine as well, and we know that the son of Joe Biden was appointed to the board of a Ukrainian gas company. In the city of Slavyansk, a city with considerable shale gas potential, we saw fracking equipment being brought in immediately after the rebels were forced to flee the city.

As for Russia, they are interested in having a “friendly” neighbour and an ally in the political sphere, in preserving their naval base in Crimea and their customs union, through which they are trying to attract Ukraine and other post-soviet countries into their own sphere of economic influence.

PM: In what way is Russia supporting the rebels and what are their interests in this rebellion?

DK: First of all, we have to understand that Russia is not only Putin, but in fact, the interests of a number of oligarch clans; and Putin as any president or national leader, is the voice of those that put him in power. There are also tensions inside the Russian government. Some of them are seeking some kind of peaceful agreement with the US and EU, and others are more belligerent.

Russian policy toward the rebels is not always completely logical. Russia actually denounced the Ukrainian government and their attacks on the rebels. Officially Russia does support them, and there are also many volunteers among the rebels, although it has to be said that Russian nationalists have been fighting on both sides of the conflict.

The rebels are supported by initiatives of some Russian businessmen, but Russia remains very suspicious of the rebels, mainly because a significant part of them are pro-socialist and pro-soviet oriented. They demand nationalization…they can be a threat to Russia because such sentiment can easily spread among the Russian population and can resonate among Russian workers in Russia.

PM: So would you say that there is significant anti-oligarch sentiments among the rebels?

DK: Yes, as I said all of the Ukrainian oligarchs are on the side of the Kiev government. Because of such sentiments, Putin’s government cannot elaborate a clear position towards the rebels, as there are still tensions within the government itself, and it is not clear how radicalized they will be an example to the Russian people.

PM: What are the perspectives for the Kiev government going forward? Will they be able to consolidate their power, given the austerity measures, the rebellion and the mothers’ and wives’ movement against mobilization?

DK: The prospects for the Kiev government are rather gloomy for several reasons. Firstly, it does not have the support of a majority of the country. This is why the overthrow of the former government was needed as the forces that came to power could not do remove it by democratic means. We had elections scheduled for the beginning of 2015, but the opposition to Yanukovich understood that they needed his overthrow to come to power. They can rely mostly on far-right gangs that suppress any kind of opposition to the government including that coming from the mothers’ and wives’ anti-war movement. This is why these gangs are armed and funded, because without them, the government would not stay in power. If they were not so important, then they would be disarmed, as they serve as a justification for Russian propaganda.

Secondly, it is rather risky to maintain a policy of austerity measures, social cuts, devaluation of currency, price hikes, oppression of minorities, attacks on communists, leftists. We know that such a policy is risky for any government because it will inevitably meet resistance from various layers of society. The Ukrainian budget is empty as has been recently announced by the Prime Minister. The Russian market for Ukrainian good is closed meaning the absence of the main source of profit.

Moreover, the current Ukrainian government is also not homogeneous. Apart from the far-right groups and parties like the Radical Party of Oleg Lyashko, Svoboda and Right Sector, there are tensions among the oligarchs themselves. Last week we saw tensions and mutual accusations among the supporters of and media outlets linked to Poroshenko and Kolomoiskyi. Even if the south-east rebels are defeated, we will see the next stage of conflict among the so-called oligarch “winners”.

We have seen protests and social uprisings all over Ukraine. We have seen protests of fired workers and doctors against social cuts. At the same time, we have seen the soldiers’ wives’ and mothers’ protests, who simply do not want them to be killed. We recently heard a mother in Chernivtsi say on television that “we were not the ones who started Maidan, let those that did go to the war”.

Also, because the budget is almost empty, Ukraine has to rely on American and Western support for the war, which could lead to protests in those countries. They will have to ask why their budget is being diverted to a civil war in Ukraine.

The state is even forcing its soldiers to buy medicine with their own money.

PM: Describe the increase of censorship by the current government and the persecution of their opponents such as Borotba? What are the perspectives for Borortba and how could people from outside Ukraine help the cause in Ukraine?

DK: Borotba as well as all other oppositional forces have faced repression as well as a kind of far-right terror… this included the Communist Party and other kinds of “left” groups and organizations. The Borotba office in Kiev was raided by far-right thugs. Borotba activists were attacked and beaten at Euromaidan. Due to the strong anti-communist sentiments and the impunity for the far-right gangs roaming the streets, any kind of left or communist activist can be attacked, beaten, arrested or murdered.

After the raids on the offices in Kiev, Borotba had to move its main offices to Kharkiv and participated in the protests there, with many workers and youth joining these movements. This lead to attacks by state security forces; there were searches of Borotba offices, attacks on Borotba members by far-right thugs during the rallies. Denis Levin was almost kidnapped at a rally in Kharkov by men in black from the neo-nazi Social National Assembly, but some people at the rally managed to release him. There were attacks on other activists and many of them had to move underground. At the Odessa massacre on May 2nd, Andrey Brazhevsky from Borotba and a communist youth member were among those killed. Many of the protesters who survived the massacre were put into prison.

Borotba activists who managed to escape their arrests have fled, although some activists have remained. Borotba is now preparing for the next wave of protests. Comrades in exile are organizing political schools for political refugees. In Ukraine, in the conditions of illegality, it is very hard to develop the work.

We are very thankful for any kind of support. We would like to see protests against fascist terror and persecution of left groups in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government actually depends very much on Western countries, and protests in those countries can go towards helping the stopping of the bombing of Donbas and the persecution of left activists. We would also like to see the solidarity movement disrupt the wall of lies by the Ukrainian media by telling the people in the West the truth. The mainstream media is all corporate media and have the same interests as western corporations. There are some flashes of truth in BBC or Al-Jazeera, but these are only flashes.

We also need help in the political education of those refugees and even some comrades that under are threat may need to be evacuated from Ukraine. But I emphasize that the main aspect is the enlargement of the campaign of anti-fascist solidarity in order to put pressure on Western governments.

PM: On behalf of the IMT [International Marxist Tendency, AR], I would like to thank you for attending our congress and raising the understanding of the situation in Ukraine among all of the comrades here. What message would you send to the comrades of the IMT?

DK: I am very thankful to the comrades from the IMT involved in the anti-fascist solidarity campaign. It was rather useful for me to be at the congress of IMT not only to talk about the situation in Ukraine, but also to learn from various countries around the world, not only about their situation, but also the prospects of left-Marxist groups in those countries. I found that on Ukraine and many other questions in the world perspectives that were discussed and the current state in the development of capitalism, our positions mostly coincide.

We wish for the comrades from the IMT to be prepared in advance for the turbulence that will come around the world; to raise the political consciousness of workers and lower classes in those countries so they are not diverted into nationalist and fascist direction. I would like the comrades from the IMT to be prepared for developments like the ones in Ukraine, but the comrades from the IMT and all of us need to work hard on this. We understand that this is not an easy task, but I once again thank the comrades for all of their work so far.

PM: Thank you very much Dmitri.

EU mask

Earlier about Ukraine 2014 conflict:

And earlier about Ukraine: