The invasion of Gaza: what does it mean? – Part Two

Hamas is under intense pressure to accept international demands for a
ceasefire. After the ferocious pounding they have received, they seem to be
indicating that they may be prepared for a ceasefire, including halting rocket
attacks on Israel.
But Israel
is not likely to stop the war just yet. It is demanding not only that that
Hamas cease firing missiles, but that it accepts Israel, renounces violence, and
adheres to the Palestinians’ previous peace deals. In other words, it is
demanding unconditional surrender.

Palestinian firefighters try to extinguish flames at a medical warehouse after an Israeli airstrike

Sooner or later, after the fighting stops, there will be new moves for
a deal. The likelihood of some kind of deal between Syria,
Iran and the USA before the end of the war must have been a
cause for concern to the Hamas leadership, which depends heavily for financial
and military support on Damascus
and Teheran. The latter have made a reputation for themselves as the
Palestinians’ friends. But all history shows that the Palestinian people should
place no faith in the friendship of foreign governments, because, as someone
once said, countries have no friends, only interests. If the interests of Syria and Iran conflict with those of the
Palestinians, it is not hard to see what they will do.

This fear on the part of the Hamas leadership may well have been the
reason for their conduct in recent months. From the public declarations of some
of the Hamas leaders it is obvious that they hope that Palestinian suffering
would rouse the world’s conscience and rally fellow Muslims to their side. In
this they have succeeded. But if they imagined that this would be sufficient to
force Israel
to back down, they were sadly mistaken. Once they started the offensive, there
was no going back for Israel,
no matter how many demonstrations are held or how many EU missions are
dispatched.

All these elements must have determined the tactics of Hamas, which
must otherwise appear suicidal. They organized rocket strikes against Israel, and
kept up a barrage of accusations against Fatah. Last winter they engineered the
dramatic breach of Gaza’s border with Egypt to advertise Gaza’s
misery and arouse the people of Egypt
to their support. This was not appreciated by the Egyptian ruling clique, which
is facing growing popular discontent as a result of the deepening economic
crisis and falling living standards.

Effects on world relations

The consequences of this war for US foreign policy will be
far-reaching. This is not the eleventh of September! In the new world
situation, the US can no
longer achieve its objectives without the backing of regional partners
as well
as China, Europe and Russia. That is
why there will be significant differences between the foreign policy of
Obama
and Bush. But in foreign policy one thing leads to another. In order to
get Russia to support what the US regards as its vital interests in the
Middle
East will require that Washington
be prepared to take Russian interests elsewhere into account.

This will probably mean that the US
will agree to put on hold plans for missile defence in Europe, on condition
that Russia
takes steps to slow down the Iranian nuclear programme. Similarly, Nato
expansion to include Georgia
and Ukraine
could be slowed. Since none of these things affect the vital interests of the
great powers, such "sacrifices" could easily be made, just as one sacrifices a
useless pawn in a game of chess.

In the same way "sacrifices" must be made in the Middle
East. The fact that David Miliband, Britain’s
foreign secretary, recently visited Syria was a sign that the
diplomatic machine was already in action. The reason for this is quite
clear: Washington wants to get out of Iraq with a minimum of fuss. It
must protect its rear and for this it requires the collaboration of Syria and Iran. But since it would be
embarrassing for Mr. Bush to admit that he is talking to a "terrorist state",
he sends his office boy from London.
For their part the Syrians and Iranians are anxious to see the back of the
Americans as soon as possible and would like, if possible, to obtain better
relations with the transatlantic giant with the possibility of trade and
investments this would open up.

Too weak to make war, Syria
has proved strong enough to deny its neighbours peace, as we see from its
meddling in Lebanon.
Even the thickest minds in Washington are
beginning to realise that the possibility of talking to Syria could
cause less damage than leaving it as an enemy. Even Israel’s outgoing prime minister,
Ehud Olmert has understood this. According to Aluf Benn, a columnist in the
Israeli daily, Haaretz, Olmert struggled in a recent meeting to persuade
Bush that the Golan Heights may be a
worthwhile price to pay for a major change in the region’s strategic alignment.

Syria has recently grown closer to Turkey, which is keeping a close eye on
developments in Iraq,
especially the Kurdish area in the north, which sits on its border and serves
as a base for the PKK. According to the Economist: "Syria, Mr Olmert
explained, sat at the crux of two axes, one linking Iran to Hamas via
Hizbullah, the other linking such ‘pragmatic’ powers as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt
and Saudi Arabia. A switch by Syria
would dramatically weaken the extremists, the Israeli leader was said to have
concluded."

Syria’s economy is being damaged by collapsing crude
reserves and world prices. It needs foreign investment to deal with
unemployment that is unofficially estimated at more than 20 percent. Syria is a
secular state and its leaders fear the growth in influence of the Islamist
groups they sponsor abroad. A wave of support for Hamas inside Syria would not be good news for them, any more
than for the leaders of Egypt
and Saudi Arabia.
It does not require much imagination to see that in the future their attitude
could change – if the terms were right.

The case of Iran
is even clearer. The Iranian regime is facing revolutionary developments which
we have analysed in previous articles. Its economy is being hit hard by falling
oil prices. There has been a wave of strikes and student protests. The
Ahmadinejad regime is clearly on its last legs and the ruling clique is looking
for a replacement. A negotiated deal with Washington would be to its advantage.

How does this affect the Palestinians and Israel? History provides us with
many examples where the rights of small nations have been used as bargaining
chips by the Great Powers who cheerfully gamble them away without even the
pretence at consultation. Once the professional diplomats sit down to talk,
everything will be placed on the table and everything will be up for
negotiation – including the fate of the Palestinians. As always, they
are the pawns of great power diplomacy, and can be sacrificed very easily. The
Palestinians should bear this firmly in mind, and not place any trust in the
good will of even its most fervent "friends" in foreign governments.

On the Palestinian question up to now Syria
and Iran
have presented themselves as the most intransigent supporters of the hard line
and have backed Hamas and Hezbollah with money and arms. The Americans and
Israelis object to this. How can we solve this problem? Let us see… Israel possesses the Golan Heights, which Syria wants to
be returned at all costs, since 1967. "Why not give us Golan?" the Syrians will
say. To which the Americans will shake their head sadly: "For our part we would
be delighted to oblige, but our friends the Israelis will object because it is
a matter of their security." "Is that all?" the Syrians will answer. But we can
also help them with the security issue. Don’t forget we pay a big part of the
bills for Hamas and Hezbollah."

At this, the Iranian delegate begins to express his displeasure: "The
rights of our Palestinian brothers are non-negotiable," he protests, banging
the table. But after a few hours (or weeks, or months), the Iranians have
recovered their good spirits when the Americans produce a whole packet of
economic proposals for trade and investment in Iran." "This comes just in time,"
says the Iranian, as the falling price of oil is causing us a lot of grief.
Maybe we ought to be a bit more flexible on the Palestine issue after all." "Yes, says the
American, with a broad smile, and don’t forget when we withdraw you guys will
control half of Iraq.
All in all it is not a bad bargain."

This conversation is, of course, fictitious. But let nobody imagine
that such things do not occur in the secret world of diplomacy where principles
are nothing and cynical calculation everything. Naturally, not a word of these
secret deals will be made public until decades later when some high diplomat
writes his memoirs. In the next few months the opposite impression will be
created: that the negotiations are very difficult, that Teheran and Syria are being very stubborn (it is always
necessary to strike a hard bargain, especially in the Middle
East where the tradition of haggling is strong). The talks will
probably break down more than once, then they will be resumed. The time it
takes to get agreement depends on many factors. But sooner or later a deal will
be done, because it is in the interests of all parties that it should be so.

But nothing is simple in the politics of the Middle
East. There can be complications for all this. Elections in Israel in
February could produce a government opposed to any concessions. Binyamin
Netanyahu not long ago was favourite to win the general election, although that
will be affected by what happens in Gaza.
His right wing Likud party generally opposes the withdrawal of Jewish settlers
from the West Bank. And the extreme right wing
of the party strengthened its position in the primaries on December 9^th.
Moshe Feiglin, who heads that wing runs a website that denies the right of
Palestinians to nationhood and urges Israel
to annex the West Bank.

This kind of thing could push Syria
and Iran
back to the policy of "rejectionism". But in the long run they will have to
negotiate. In any case, the new Israeli government, whoever leads it, will have
to deal, not with George W Bush but with Barak Obama, whose agenda for the Middle East is rather different to that of his
predecessor. Since America
subsidises Israel,
Obama will have a fair amount of leverage with which to exert pressure.

The only thing that can completely upset this scenario is the
revolutionary movement of the masses in the Arab world and in Iran. The
invasion of Gaza
has set in motion forces that it will not be easy to halt. This is a factor
that the politicians and diplomats cannot control with their usual methods of
bribery, trickery and intrigue. In the last analysis it is the only hope for
the people of Palestine
and the whole world.

War and revolution

Although Hamas has taken a battering, the longer the Israeli army stays
in Gaza the
more it may find ways of striking back. Until yesterday Hezbollah had only
offered rhetorical support. However, the latest reports of rockets being fired
into northern Israel
may indicate that the conflict could spiral out of control.

As the BBC has reported: "Rockets have been fired into northern Israel from Lebanon,
raising fears the Israeli offensive in Gaza
may spread. Israel’s
army responded with artillery to a barrage of at least three rockets. No group
has claimed responsibility."

The same report goes on to explain that, "The rocket attacks from Lebanon have raised concerns about a wider war,
(…) It is is not clear if the rockets were fired by Hezbollah or by one of the
armed Palestinian groups that operate in Lebanon. If Hezbollah mounted the
attack there is a grave risk of a very strong Israeli reaction, our correspondent
says. The Palestinians in Lebanon
do not have the capacity to fight a war with Israel, but Hezbollah does."

Israel is clearly anxious that Hezbollah might be
tempted to join in. If it does, in the present context, the Israel military
will be pushed into hitting back very hard. This is very worrying to the
imperialist powers, particularly the European who fear such a scenario. Whether
Hezbollah gets sucked into the conflict we will see in the coming days.
Meanwhile, inside Israel,
too, this war will have serious consequences, as it drags on over time.

The aim of the war is to marginalize Hamas, to weaken and if possible
destroy it. This aim is secretly welcomed by the "moderate" Arab regimes. And
Abbas would not lose any sleep over it either, except for the fact that the
attack on Gaza has caused outrage in the West Bank. The so-called moderate Arab regimes have been
strangely restrained so far in their condemnations. In reality the rulers of Egypt, Saudi
Arabia and Jordan would not be too displeased
if Hamas were to be wiped off the face of the earth, although these rulers
would never dare to admit such a thing in public.

The petty bourgeois pacifists can only see the horrors of war but they
are incapable of seeing the other side of the picture. History has shown many
times that wars can lead to revolution. However the invasion of Gaza ends, one thing is
sure. Sooner or later, there will be revolutionary developments in the Arab
world that will lead to the overthrow of one rotten regime after another. All
these reactionary regimes are all hanging by a thread. They live in constant
fear that the poverty and discontent of the masses might erupt, leading to a
revolutionary overthrow.

The world economic crisis that has led to a collapse of oil prices has
underlined this threat. The present situation will lead to a further process of
radicalisation throughout the Middle East. The
workers and students who come out onto the streets to protest against the
invasion of Gaza
are not only protesting against the cruel treatment of the Palestinians. They
are protesting against the inactivity of their own rulers, against their
complicity with Washington and therefore with Israel, against
their luxurious lifestyles that contrast so brutally with the misery of the
masses.

In an editorial of 17/12/2008, the Financial Times expressed its
concern about the stability of the Arab regimes: "Ripples through these
regions easily build into waves. The US-allied leaders of Egypt, Saudi
Arabia and Jordan,
initially happy to see Israel
hit Hizbollah or Hamas, quickly change their tune as soon as their peoples
rally to the militants. Their legitimacy and survival is at stake." (my
emphasis, AW)

In Egypt, where
there was serious unrest even before the war, police have arrested dozens of
campaigners for trying to send convoys of food and medicine to Gaza, and Internet organisers were calling
for a general strike in support of the strip. There have been mass
demonstrations in the Lebanon
and the US embassy in Beirut has been attacked.
There was a mass demonstration in Istanbul, and
other big demonstrations have taken place in Jordan
and the West Bank and all over the Middle East, in Indonesia,
in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, Srinagar
in Indian-administered Kashmir.

In the northern Israeli town of Sakhnin
tens of thousands of Israeli-Palestinians have protested against Israel’s
offensive. At present the majority of Jewish Israelis have remained passive or
support the offensive, deceived by the propaganda about a defensive war. But as
the war continues and casualties grow, that can change. There are already signs
of differences in the Israeli ruling class. A former head of Mossad has said
that Hamas must be included in future negotiations. This already indicates
growing doubts even among the ruling layer. If the rockets keep on coming, even
in reduced numbers, questions will be raised in Israel and elsewhere about what has
really been achieved, especially as the death toll both among the Israeli
troops and Palestinian civilians becomes even more severe.

The rulers of the Middle East are
right to fear the revolutionary potential of the masses because it was already
implicit in the situation before these events. Now it is coming close to
boiling point. Arab governments, though furious with Hamas, will come under
pressure to reflect the anger on the streets to take some action, and may face
overthrow if they do not do so. That is why people like Gordon Brown want peace
as soon s possible, because war means instability and instability can have
effects that will not be to the liking of either London
or Washington.

A betrayal is being prepared

It is impossible to understand the events in Gaza outside this context. The aim of the
Israelis is to pulverise Hamas in order to weaken them as against Fatah, whose
services they will need in the next period. On the other hand, Hamas is
attempting desperately to gain the sympathy of the Arab masses in order that
they will not be completely marginalized. And both sides are issuing a message
to those who are preparing to do a deal behind their backs.

Under Abbas the leaders are attempting to arrive at an accommodation
with Israel.
There is still talk of setting up an independent Palestinian state on land
currently occupied by Israel.
But how can this be established? The moment we pass from generalizations and
pious declarations to the hard facts, the problems come to the fore. I wrote on
this question in December 2007, when Bush organized the farce of the Annapolis conference:

"The slogan of the Israeli government is: what we have we hold.
The Zionists have no intention of giving any important concessions. Hamas
boasted that they had expelled the Israeli army from Gaza. That is a joke. The Israelis withdrew
from Gaza as a tactical move to silence
international criticism and create the impression that they were giving up
something important, when in reality they have no interest in Gaza. This was intended to strengthen their
stranglehold on the West Bank, which is the
decisive question.
"The Israelis have relentlessly continued building the monstrous wall
that slices through Palestinian territory on the West Bank, robbing
large chunks of land under the pretext of ‘defence’. The settlers have
become increasingly bold and insolent. After the incidents in Gaza no
Israeli government will want to confront the settlers in the West Bank.
"Then there is the little matter of Jerusalem, which both Jews and Arabs claim as
their natural God-given capital. As for the right of return of Palestinians
expelled from their homes since 1948, there is no question of Israel accepting
them back, since that would completely upset the demographic balance of the
‘Jewish state’."

How are these problems to be resolved? To this question diplomacy has
never produced a satisfactory answer. The defiance of the Israelis has just
been expressed in the eloquent language of bombs, rockets and artillery fire.
And what will the Palestinians say? They will have nothing to say because they
will not be invited to these negotiations. The people who have fought and given
their blood to fight for their rights, will see that their destiny is being
determined by foreign governments who are only concerned with their own narrow
national interests.

When all the fundamental issues are nicely decided, there will be a
Middle East Conference, with the participation of all the well-known "friends
of Palestine" – Egypt,
Jordan, Saudi Arabia
and others. Abbas will then be invited, not to decide anything, but like a man
invited to the last day of a trial to listen to the sentence. As for Hamas,
whether they are invited or not depends on their good behaviour. In any case,
it will make not the slightest difference to the outcome.

A blind alley

It is the elementary duty of every proletarian internationalist to
defend the Palestinians against the violence of Israeli imperialism. But it is
also our duty to say what is: the tactics of suicide bombing and firing rockets
at Israeli towns are counterproductive and useless. They do not represent armed
struggle because they do not even dent the armour of the Israeli state, but
strengthen it by pushing the Israeli masses behind it.

A big part of the appeal of Hamas comes from its image of resistance to
occupation. Hamas won the election in 2006 because the masses were tired of the
corruption of the PLO leaders and their connivance with Israel. But if
we pose the question purely in nationalist terms (Jews against Arabs), then no
solution of the Palestinian question is possible. It is not possible to solve
the problem of the Palestinian people by tactics like suicide bombings and
firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. The methods advocated by Hamas
were tried by the PLO for 40 years and have led only to one bloody defeat after
another. No amount of sympathy for the sufferings of the Palestinians can alter
that fact.

What will be the end result of the war? In military terms Hamas will
have lost massively. Many of its cadres will have been killed or taken
prisoner. Its military infrastructure will be shattered. In terms of physical
assets, Gaza
will be left devastated. The economic damage will take many years to rebuild.
In this sense the Israelis will have got what they wanted. More serious for Israel will be
the long-term political effects. Although it will have suffered a severe blow,
Hamas will not be destroyed.

And what will Israel
have gained? The Israelis’ "victory" in Gaza
will turn to ashes in their mouths. Let us remember that the whole point was to
achieve security. In the end they will have earned an even greater hatred in
the Arab world than before. The threat of terrorist actions will not be any
less than before but far greater. For every Hamas militant they kill there will
be ten, twenty or a hundred youths who are now children filled with bitterness
and hate, who will be ready to volunteer for suicide missions against Israel
and its allies in the Arab and western world. If this is the idea of creating
security for Israel
in the future, it is a very strange one!

What will Hamas have achieved after all the dust settles on the ruins
of Gaza? They
may win some meagre concessions – perhaps a loosening of Israel’s siege, an opening of Egypt’s border,
a lot of aid from fellow Muslims, and maybe a modicum of international
recognition. Their prestige among the Arabs may have been enhanced. But the
question remains: what has been solved by all this? We merely return
once more to the same never-ending cycle of violence, wars and killings that
solve nothing. The rage in Gaza over Israel’s violence may momentarily boost Hamas’ popularity,
but after the excitement dies down the people of Gaza may start to ask what brought them to
this mess.

The actions of the Israeli army are stirring up the whole Middle East. They will reap a new harvest of hate,
bitterness and a thirst for revenge. But the tactics of groups like Hamas can
never succeed. In fact, they are entirely counterproductive. The leaders of
Hamas say: "As the weaker party we have the right to use any methods available
to us to defeat our oppressors." To this we reply: "Yes, you have that right
and we understand that the methods of terrorism and guerrilla warfare are
always resorted to by a weaker side against a stronger oppressor.

To professional soldiers such guerrilla methods are always to be
condemned. In olden times the shepherd David used his sling to kill the giant
Goliath and doubtless the Philistine generals considered that an unfair and
barbarous method that did not comply with the rules of warfare. But by the use
of this simple but effective method, David won and Goliath lost his head. All
that is true but we will say also this: a good general will only make use of
such methods that are consistent with his strategic aims and likely to be
successful. Only a bad general makes use of methods that do not lead to
victory but will guarantee defeat. And the methods used by Hamas can only lead
to defeat and help the enemy. That is why we oppose these methods.

If the methods of Hamas have failed to benefit the Palestinians, so
have the methods of the Israeli imperialists failed the people of Israel. Every
attempt by Israel
to guarantee security by force has turned out to be counterproductive. The
occupation of Palestinian territory after the 1967 six-day war has intensified
the conflict with the Palestinians. Its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 led to the creation
of its Nemesis, Hezbollah. Its 2006 war on Hezbollah undermined the pro-western
government in Beirut.
The current pounding of Gaza
has discredited Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate Palestinian president. Security is
a mirage that constantly eludes Israel’s
grasp, and the future of the state of Israel always has a question mark
over it.

Equally, every attempt to defeat Israel by military means has ended
by reinforcing reactionary Zionism. From the failure of the so-called armed
struggle, Abbas and the leaders of Fatah have drawn the conclusion that the
only alternative is to negotiate with Israel and seek the good offices of
the imperialists. But we have already seen what that means over the last decade
or so. It means negotiating surrender and selling out the cause of Palestinian
national self-determination. Neither Hamas nor Abbas therefore offer any way
out.

What will be the outcome of negotiations on a "Palestinian state" – the
"two-state solution"? This solution depends on one thing only: the
agreement of
Israel
(which, after all, will be one of the two states, and not the weakest
of them).
What will Israel
agree to? They might accept some adjustments of the present frontier
with the West Bank. They might allow some opening of the border
with Gaza
(which they can close at any time). They may impose some restrictions
on
building new Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, and they may even
dismantle a few of the existing ones. They cannot hand over Jerusalem,
which they regard as their
capital, though there may be some sort of sharing agreement. Nor will
they
allow the right of return to Israel
proper, although they might permit some to enter the Palestinian
territory.

This is the best the Palestinians can hope for on the present basis: a
truncated pseudo-state, which will be economically dependent on Israel, whose
presence will stand over it like a dark and menacing shadow. Control of this
"state" will be entrusted only to those Palestinian leaders like Abbas, who is
prepared to act as a puppet of Israel,
and who will mercilessly repress any dissident Palestinian group.

In other words, it will be a "solution" similar to that imposed on the
Irish by British imperialism in 1922. That led to a bloody civil war in Ireland in which
many more Irish were killed than were ever killed by the British. The same
thing can happen with the Palestinians in the future, as we saw with the civil
war in Gaza in
2007. Some Palestinians might accept, while others would undoubtedly reject,
leading to new conflicts and bloodshed.

Take the revolutionary road!

Napoleon said that defeated armies learn well. All the defeats and
sacrifices and martyrdoms will serve for nothing unless we are willing to learn
from them and turn them to our advantage. If we merely look at the present
bloody mess in sentimental and moralistic terms, as is too often the case, we
will gain nothing from it. Our task, in the words of the philosopher Spinoza,
is: neither weep nor laugh but understand.

Ultimately, both Jews and Arabs must have the right to live in peace
and control their own destinies in a homeland of their own. It is easy to state
this aim, but not so easy to say how it can be achieved. The so-called Peace
Process is dead. There is no doubt it will be revived, but not until the
Israeli army has done its bloody work in Gaza
thoroughly.

We can predict that after the war there will be one deal after
another, and they will break down one after another. None of this
will do anything to solve the problems of the Palestinians. Nor will it
guarantee security for the people of Israel. However, there is a
solution to the Palestinian problem that is neither futile acts of terrorism or
diplomatic sell-outs.

The events in Gaza
were the spark that fell on a parched prairie. It provoked a wave of mass
protests that has shaken all the existing regimes in the Middle
East. The revolutionary potential implicit in these movements was
instantly recognised by the strategists of Capital. Thus, the Economist
wrote: "But unless the current furious street protests spark a region-wide
revolution that scares the wits out of Israel and its friends, Hamas will
still face the same painful old choice of how to come to terms with an
immensely more powerful and equally determined enemy."

These words express the essence of the problem excellently. What do
they mean? The intelligent bourgeois understand that the Palestinian question
can act as a catalyst for all the accumulated frustration, rage and discontent
of the masses in the Middle East. That is why
they are continually pleading for peace, ceasefires, agreements and moderation.
They can see what the Marxists can see: that a region-wide revolution is
implicit in the whole situation. That is the starting point for the success
of the Palestinian Revolution, and no other.

The question is posed very clearly by the above lines. The Palestinians
are faced by an immensely more powerful and equally determined enemy.
The events in Gaza
have clearly shown the impossibility of defeating this monster by purely
military means. Is there a power that is even stronger and more determined than
the power of the state of Israel?
Yes, there is such a power. It is the power of the masses, once they are
organized and mobilized to fight. Two intifadas have shown that the
Palestinian masses are prepared to fight heroically. But in war courage is
never enough to win. A clear strategy and tactics, and above all good generals
are necessary. In revolutionary terms this means that in order to win, the
masses require a revolutionary programme, correct methods and tactics and good
leadership. This is what is needed and this is what is lacking.

The present leaders of the Palestinians offer no alternative. Some of
the leaders of Fatah in reality would not be sorry to see Hamas liquidated.
They have in fact blamed Hamas for the Israeli invasion! This has caused a wave
of disgust among ordinary supporters of Fatah and the mass of Palestinians on
the West Bank, who are asking why their top
leader has adopted such a position while their compatriots are being
slaughtered. Arafat, with all his faults, would not have behaved like this.
Many Palestinians are drawing the conclusion: "Abbas is a puppet of Israel."

Hamas is hoping to inspire Palestinians in the West
Bank to overthrow Fatah. They have not yet succeeded in this.
However discredited Abbas may be, Palestinians do not see Hamas as an
alternative, though some young people in desperation may turn to it. That would
be a tragedy. What is required is not a new generation of suicide bombers
seeking revenge and martyrdom, but the construction of a viable mass
revolutionary alternative.

The first condition for the future success of the Palestinian
revolution lies in the revolutionary overthrow of the reactionary bourgeois
regimes of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and then for a
settling of accounts with the reactionary Zionist state itself. The whole Arab
world is now in a state of ferment. The one thing that is lacking in the
situation is a genuine revolutionary leadership, standing on the basic ideas of
Marxism-Leninism. That is what is required to find a way out of this bloody
quagmire.

In the past there were powerful Communist Parties in the Arab world,
which claimed to stand for Marxism-Leninism, although the Stalinist two-stage
policies of the leadership led to one defeat after another. Since the fall of
the USSR,
the old Communist Parties have ceased to exist. But there are many
revolutionary cadres who are dissatisfied with the existing political
leaderships and are looking for an alternative. It is to these layers,
especially the youth, that we address ourselves. That is the only hope for the
future.

Those who consider that the people of Israel are one solid reactionary
mass understand nothing. If this were the case, then the future of the
Palestinians would be hopeless indeed. But it is not true. On more than one
occasion the masses in Israel
have demonstrated against the brutality of their own imperialists and in
solidarity with the Palestinians. Even in this conflict we had the first signs
of protest in the recent anti-war demonstration in Tel Aviv. On more then one
occasion the Israeli workers have organized strikes and general strikes. The
class struggle exists in Israel
as in any other country. What is necessary is to intensify it and cut the
ground from under the feet of the reactionary Zionists.

The victory of the socialist revolution in a country like Egypt would have important echoes within Israel,
especially if it stood on the programme of Leninist internationalism.

The Palestinian question is part of the overall problems faced by the
masses throughout the Middle East. The only
real perspective for solving the problem is the creation of a Socialist
Federation of the peoples of the region, with complete autonomy for Arabs, Jews,
Kurds and all other peoples who inhabit this land. The fight for a free and
genuinely democratic Palestine
will be won as part of the internationalist socialist revolution, or it will
not be won at all.

London, January 8, 2009

[End]

<< Part 1