Sunday, 10 July 2011

Israeli Communist Party's Disgraceful Support for Syria's Assad

Israel's Stalinists Learn Nothing from the Collapse of the Soviet Union

There is no doubt that the ICP was, for a long time, the only legal party in Israel to stand up to the racist Zionist attacks on Arab Israelis. However it did much harm by tying the fortune of Israel’s Arabs to that of the Soviet Union. That is why radical nationalist groups like Balad to its left, have supplanted it.

The CP has often been timid and lukewarm. It endorsed the creation of the Israeli state and the Declaration of Independence, knowing full well what this meant. It accepted in essence the Zionist goal of a Jewish state and not only in Israel of course, but at the behest of Stalin in the Arab countries. Nothing undermined the CPs, the major left group, in places like Iraq that the decision to support the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed it was a catastrophe for the Arab left.

The CPs support for a 2 States position today, when such a demand is meaningless outside a glorified version of an Indian reservation is almost as bad. It can only reinforce the position of the present PA leadership under Abbas, with which the ICP does have strong relations. The PA of course is an almost wholly US-Israeli sponsored entity.

That is why it is so disgraceful that the ICP marched in unison with Zionist parties such as Kadimah to call for a 2 State solution. The ICP knows full well that Tsipi Livni, Kadimah leader, openly calls for the transfer of Israeli Arabs into a Palestinian statelet as part of a readjustment of borders (i.e. hiving off the parts of Israel in which Arabs predominate). It is a thoroughly racist solution whose aim is to preserve the Jewish demographic majority in Israel.

The ICP artificially divides regimes into pro and anti-imperialist, without looking at their substance and then characterises the heroic struggles that are taking place as pro-imperialist, as if Assad and his father were ever anti-imperialists. Assad’s Syria is a vicious police state, and Hafez Assad, Bashir’s father invaded Lebanon in 1976 precisely in order to prevent the victory of the Palestinians and Left against the Phalange. It did this with Israel’s blessing. The Assad regime is no friend of the Left or the Palestinians.

The ICP, which is a thoroughly Stalinist party, is saying it has no confidence in the Syrian Ba’athists and is content to rely on a regime that is as corrupt and brutal as any other Arab regime on the grounds that its alliance with Iran annoys Israel and the USA. But both the latter have deliberately not called for the overthrow of Assad. Imperialism fears the masses as much as the Israeli CP.

Socialism is about power being taken by and for the people, economic and political. Mowing down demonstrators with gun fire should be equally condemned whether it is in Bahrain, Egypt or Damascus. The ICP’s condemnation is mealy mouthed and it contrasts the resistance to the oppressor and likewise equates the massive military force at Assad’s disposal with the puny reaction to it.

I copy below an article from Challenge magazine.

Tony Greenstein

by Agbarieh-Zahalka

The following article was originally written in Arabic as a response to Muhammad Nafa'a, the General Secretary of the Communist Party in Israel (MAKI). We offer it in English because it gives an important insight into the political and ideological discussions regarding the Arab Spring. Nafa'a has been publicly supporting the Assad regime against the popular uprising in Syria. So have 50 other communist parties. This article proposes an alternative socialist position.

Mohammed Nafa’a, secretary-general of the Communist Party of Israel (Maki), recently published a series of articles in which he adopts the position of Bashar Assad and views the uprisings in Syria as an imperialist-Zionist plot. The articles were published in Al-Ittihad, Maki’s journal, and on the Discussion website (in Arabic).

The secretary-general’s position is dangerous because it not only represents the Israeli party’s position, but also that of no less than 50 communist parties that were present at the congress in Brussels on May 13-15, 2011. According to the congress decision (Paragraph 5), “It is clear that Syria is the victim of destructive and provocative manipulation by American imperialism and its ally Israel, and by other reactionary forces in the region. Washington has long aimed to bring down the Syrian regime, which it categorizes as part of the ‘axis of evil’, and to replace it with a puppet regime loyal to America and its allies. We strongly oppose all intervention in or threats of aggression towards Syria by imperialist forces and Israel. We support all the national democratic forces in Syria which are acting to obtain the legitimate demands of the people.”

Nafa’a adds, “We oppose firing on the demonstrators in Syria! But what about the shots of the ‘resistance’ against the Syrian army!! And why were negotiations rejected, and why the ‘revolutionary’ change of heart of some of the resistance, which at first demanded regime reforms and not its downfall, and then hurried to call for its downfall? If this is their aim, they are just following the will of their master America.” (Modern Discussion, June 19, 2011)

What is the significance of this declaration, which sounds like a quote from a speech by Syrian President Bashar Assad? At best, it ignores the role played by the people in the uprising and belittles the victims without expressing any solidarity or regret for the deaths. At worst, it accuses the people, who demand the downfall of the regime, of cooperating with the US and Israel.

Revolution of workers and farmers

From the congress’ decision, it is clear that the communist parties are failing to read the new political map, and do not understand the nature of the uprisings in the Arab world. Their defense of Assad’s regime, while the Syrian president is slaughtering his own nation, makes one wonder what kind of relationship they had with the regime. It seems that these parties are defending themselves more than Assad, because for many years they tied their fate to the Syrian regime and other similar regimes, which they saw as the militant wing of the global anti-imperialist bloc. In the congress’ decision, and in the articles by Nafa’a, a distinction is made between the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia and that of Syria. While the former receive full support as uprisings against pro-western regimes, the latter is condemned because the Syrian regime was considered anti-imperialist.

If we consider this approach objectively, we see a number of worrying weaknesses. Firstly, do the Syrian people not suffer from the same conditions which led the Egyptian people to rise up? Do Syrian citizens live outside the Arab hell in which Egyptians, Tunisians and Libyans live, with its lack of democracy, its corrupt and violent government, its unemployment and poverty, its dynastic leadership, and an economy privatized for the benefit of the ruling family and friends?

It is no coincidence that the ‘Arab Spring’ broke out in a number of places simultaneously, without distinguishing between regimes from the moderate camp and regimes from the rejectionist camp, and without granting immunity to any regime. The Arab people have learned from personal experience, in the bitter reality of their existence, that there is no connection between a regime’s words, whether moderate or otherwise, and its concern for its citizens. From Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia to Hosni and Gamal Mubarak in Egypt and to Assad and his capitalist cousin Rami Makhlouf in Syria, they each hold a different passport but they all belong to the same bourgeois class, they all plunder the resources of their nations, they all corrupt their surroundings and suppress basic civil freedoms, and they have all caused unemployment and poverty.

While the profits of those close to the regime continue to grow, the regular citizen earns starvation wages. This is what led Muhammad Bouazizi to set himself alight in Tunisia. This is what led Egyptian workers, paid just 200 Egyptian pounds a month ($34), to rise up against the regime, and this is what keeps them demonstrating and striking even now. This corruption is what led the Syrian people, who earn poverty wages of just $3,000 per year, to rise up against Assad.

The uprisings in the Arab world demand social justice and fair employment terms, just as they demand democracy. Thus they are linked to the events in Spain of May 15, and to current events in Greece – popular rage against neo-liberal economic policies and against the powerlessness of their own politicians.

The question arises: what happened to the class perspective of Nafa’a, secretary-general of the Communist Party of Israel? What happened to his working class solidarity, and all the values upon which the communist movement is based? Is he unable to see the difference between the workers and the poor, struggling on the streets, and the corrupt and satiated bourgeois classes of Damascus and Halab?

What rejectionism?

Nafa’a says, “We are against the killing of civilians and dynastic regimes, we are against the emergency laws, detentions and more…” However, in the same breath he adds, “Is the US plotting against the Syrian regime for these reasons?... Syria supported the courageous resistance of Lebanon, and stood strongly against all US plans, just like the Iranian regime which together with Syria, according to the US, is part of the ‘axis of evil’.” (Ibid)

Nafa’a distorts history and counts on his readers’ short memory when he praises the Syrian regime and describes it as anti-imperialist. Perhaps he himself has forgotten or forgiven the regime for the things that don’t quite match the heroic image he paints. We have not forgotten. We have not forgotten how in 1990-91, Assad’s regime participated in the US strike against Iraq or how, in 2003, he ignored Bush Junior’s attack against Iraq, just because he was happy to see the weakening of his old enemy the Iraqi Baath Party and the strengthening of his ally, Iran. This is the same Iran which cooperated with the US in order to win control of Iraq via the Shi’ite prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, and also offered the US extensive assistance in Afghanistan.

We have not forgotten that in 1976, Hafez Assad, Bashar's father, invaded the refugee camps in Lebanon with full Israeli coordination, to suppress Palestinian resistance. We have not forgotten how Bashar himself, “hero” of the resistance, did not respond to the Israeli aircraft flying over his palace or to the bombing of the nuclear plant, just as he accepted the occupation of the Golan Heights. Bashar’s declarations that he is willing to negotiate with Israel should not surprise anyone. He will not hesitate to throw himself into America’s arms to enable his middle class to flourish and become ever wealthier. This is exactly what happened in Egypt after it adopted the policy of “infitah” – openness to the West.

What is behind the claim that Washington and its allies want to bring down Bashar Assad? All the US and Israel want is to strengthen the bear hug around the Syrian regime in order to steer it away from Iran. The last thing the US and Israel need is democratic Arab uprisings. These uprisings strengthen the Arab people politically, socially and economically, free them from corrupt and despotic regimes, and enable them to contend with imperialism and occupation. Furthermore, the deep changes taking place in the Arab world rob Israel of the claim to be the only democracy in the Middle East, with all the implications this has for its strategic position in the region.

Regarding democracy

Nafa’a doesn’t merely defend Assad, he also aspires to teach us something about revolutionism: “A real revolution knows how to recognize its main enemy, the enemy of humanity, of the people, of the workers: the US and imperialism. This is the compass, and we must guard it well. The dictatorship of the workers of Lenin and the dictatorship of Stalin are immeasurably preferable to the democracy of thieves, imperialists and traitors. This is the compass, and this is the test.” (Ibid.)

In the same article, Nafa’a adds, “Some are in a hurry, some are captivated by the democratic slogans!! I claim that the dictatorial regime in democratic Korea is immeasurably preferable to the democracy in the US, Europe and Israel. Furthermore, some people refer to the concept ‘Stalinism’ in a negative way, in the sense of jails, torture, cult of personality etc… The alternative to all this was Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Yakovlev the democrats, and we’ve already seen the results – complete betrayal of the Party, the motherland and the nation.”

Thus it is clear that the Communist Party of Israel learned nothing from the fall of the Soviet Union, made no personal reckoning and did not reexamine its history and the reasons that led to the painful failure of the first communist state. The political regime in the USSR was based on one party in the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was the Achilles’ heel of the soviet socialist system. The fact that the USSR succeeded in building a strong economic regime did not prevent its fall.

Socialism, in the Marxist sense, is based on democracy and favors a multi-party system. Historical circumstances led the Soviet Communist Party to adopt a dictatorial regime, especially the isolation and numerical weakness of the working class vis-à-vis the peasants after the revolution. Is this enough to justify the dictatorial regime of a single party once it has proved its failure? After all, a one-party dictatorship is exactly what brought the Arab people out onto the streets to protest. These revolutionary uprisings could have been a golden opportunity for Israel's Communist Party, Maki, to reexamine its antiquated position on dictatorship. However, under Nafa’a, we see no signs of new thinking.

The alternative

“If the Syrian regime falls,” Nafa’a warns, “what will be the alternative?! It will be forces chosen by the US, those who currently demand western intervention, just as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan… Is this real democracy? The partition and dissolution of the state?” (Ibid.)

According to Nafa’a, opposing imperialism necessarily means supporting the Arab regime, regardless of the regime’s character. In Syria’s case, this is a regime that has no connection at all to socialism. A regime that works to privatize the economy to the benefit of the ruling family and its friends, a regime that maintains a monopoly on the economy and security services to ensure it enjoys more rights than the rest of the nation – is this the kind of regime we should be defending? On what basis does Nafa’a claim that the fall of Assad’s regime will mean the rise of an American puppet?

There is a fundamental flaw in Maki’s thinking. We are all familiar with the animosity between the US and the rejectionist camp, but it would be a disgraceful oversimplification to limit these events to the schematic division between “those who are not with me are necessarily with my enemy.” For the first time in 40 years of oppression, a new “camp” is growing in Syria – the people – which does not like the regime but does not like the US either. Why should we take a stand against the will of the people and scorn its objectives?

In recent years, Maki’s flawed thinking has led it to participate in and justify groundless coalitions. With one hand, it supported the Iranian president against domestic opposition, on the grounds that he was opposing the US, and it supported the Islamic nationalist resistance led by Iran and Syria. With the other hand, it supports Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), a moderate leader on the other side of the fence.

It seems that the Party has not yet understood that the Cold War ended with the fall of the USSR, and that the bipolar world of a reactionary US and progressive USSR no longer exists. They seem to think there is no need to adapt to a new reality – all that is needed is to tinker with the old. In their eyes, the USSR’s place in the confrontation between the two blocs has been taken over by Iran and its allies as the flag-bearers of anti-imperialism.

What the Communist Party of Israel refuses to comprehend is that the Arab nations themselves do not believe in this bipolar equation, and are not willing to accept Iran as opposed to the US, or vice versa. At last we are witnessing the end of the era of frustration and despair which drove the Arab nations to support anyone who opposed US imperialism and the Israeli occupation, including bin-Laden’s al-Qaeda, without thinking of creating an alternative. A new player is on the stage, the workers’ movement, allied with the youth and those who support social change, with movements and parties, civil society organizations, intellectuals and artists – all are building a third alternative, a positive alternative, compelling all other forces to contend with its existence.

The Arab uprisings face a harsh reality. They seek ways of building a new society, but not according to the American model. The American example does not speak to the revolutionary youth, especially when American capitalism has been in crisis for a number of years. The Arab nations want to create a regime which will ensure the welfare of society and the workers. Although Arab socialism is still a long way from being implemented, there is no doubt that the socialist ideal is on the horizon for the democratic movements in the Arab states.

And in Israel?

The Israeli Communist Party’s biggest problem is its policies within Israel. The legitimacy of the secretary-general’s position is being undermined, while his party supports the moderate camp in Israel which is beholden to the US. Maki supports the Palestinian Authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas. Party leaders are regular guests at PA and Fatah events. In 1993, Maki supported the Oslo Accords, and a year earlier it joined Yitzhak Rabin’s bloc as the “lesser evil.” In keeping with this approach, in 1996 Maki called for people to vote for Shimon Peres, the Labor candidate for prime minister, and in 1999 it called on Arab citizens to support Labor candidate Ehud Barak. The justification was the “uniqueness” of conditions in Israel. There is no need to elaborate on the coalitions Maki (along with the various forms of Hadash) has made in local authorities and the Histadrut, as well as with Labor, Kadima and other establishment parties.

In the demonstration marking 44 years of occupation, held in Tel Aviv on June 4, 2011, Maki and Hadash leaders including Nafa’a marched with Labor and Kadima leaders under Israeli flags. Nafa’a and his colleagues forgot their loyalty to the anti-imperialist camp when they joined the coalition at the head of the demonstration which adopted Obama’s speech calling on the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

Members and supporters of Daam, the Workers’ Party (in which I am active), also took part in the demonstration. Daam did not join this coalition. Daam marched independently shouting slogans calling for the downfall of both Netanyahu and Assad. In the flyers we distributed, we expressed our opposition to the Occupation and our support for the Syrian people’s struggle for democracy and the downfall of the regime. This stance raised the ire of some of the Communist Party leaders who didn’t hesitate to tell us so. They claimed that the demonstration was not about Syria, that we were “mixing messages,” and that such slogans would bring back colonialism to Syria. They made these claims just one day after 62 protestors were killed in Hama.

A historic opportunity

The new Arab uprisings need devoted and experienced leaders who have the knowledge and education to lead the people to achieve their objectives. Without such leadership, the revolutionary energy is liable to evaporate while reactionary forces rush in to fill the vacuum and claim the regime. This kind of struggle is taking place in Egypt today.

The Syrian uprising is the most difficult test. It requires that the Arab Left rethink its path and abandon the option of Iranian and Islamic resistance, which has dominated Arab political discourse, including the Left's, during the last twenty years. The Left must roll up its sleeves and rebuild its forces, and shake off the dust of cynicism and despair.

Unfortunately, positions such as those adopted by the Communist Party of Israel undermine the crucial process of forming an Arab revolutionary Left. These positions damage the socialist option as we understand the concept: a regime that enables human freedoms, based on democracy and genuine social justice. And a final word: Syria is not just a political test but, first and foremost, a test for the human conscience. Whatever the political differences of opinion, there is nothing that can justify support for a regime that kills its own citizens. The history of nations will not forgive those who stand shoulder to shoulder with torturers and murderers. "end"

Translated from the Hebrew version by Yonatan Preminger.


  1. The Communist Party was always a joke in Israel, as it attracted mostly Jewish Zombies who wanted Israel to be as the USSR dream lala land, all the others were Muslim Israelies, that the connection between them and communist party was only because of the national issue, nothing else, they were hell of Capitalists, but joined the party because of the anti Zionist issue.
    Matzpen was the biggest joke and the outcome is your good friend Gilad Atzmon, his parents raised this bozo as the next generation "soldier" of the radical militant communism.
    See the results..........

  2. There is some truth Gidi in what you say but Rakah/Khadesh or whatever it calls itself now was the only organisation from 48 onwards to resist the military rule and oppose the attacks on Israel's Arabs.

    Agreed that Arabs joined it because of its opposition to Zionism (in fact it isn't opposed to Zionism but is non-Zionist) not its anti-capitalism.

    Don't accept that Atzmon was the product of Matzpen, which gave birth to a generation of Israeli anti-Zionists. Atzmon's parents were Revisionist Zionists and his dad a member of Irgun. That is where he got his racism, only he twisted it around a big to target Jews rather than Arabs.

  3. I don't know where the hell you are getting your information from, as you always write as you are so sure about what you are talking about.
    Most of you are realy Ignorant and base your knowledge of what you choose to read.
    where did u get your stupid story about Atzmon.
    You buy everything he writes don't you.
    Read some writings of his mother Ariella, you are funny.
    if this is a way Zionist write, well guess you think you know everything , you are a scholar from the uk.
    I was there I know, All the old time commies know this story, so what's your game.

    All the communist parties are anti Zionist, the more radical the more anti.

  4. what a joke
    "Atzmon's parents were Revisionist Zionists"

    Read Ingorant, that's Atzmon Mother article, sounds very Zionist....

    it is actually the Jews that perpetuated themselves as a racial 'blood community'. The Jewish Israeli lobby's success in the Bush administration verifies it as such. This is just one example.

    Right from the beginning, Zionist settling was marked by 'tower and stockade' as the manifestation of an accomplished fact. The Zionist call for the REDEMPTION of the lands of Palestine was an aggressive abuse of a HOMECOMING. Lands belong to those who dwell there, therefore the use of the word REDEMPTION was vicious from the beginning. Redemption from what? From whom? Under the slogan of ”making the desert bloom” Zionism defined the place as a desert and thus completely ignored the villages, towns and the people already living there.
    Jewish Zionists defend their colonization of Palestine by pointing at those dark chapters of other nations' history. They remind us of the atrocities against the American Indians, or the wrongs done to the Australian Aborigines. True, to colonize a land, killing and shunning its indigenous inhabitants is evil, but to return to what is claimed as one's homeland lacking the ”care of homecoming” is a unique historical heartless and shameless phenomenon.
    In their fanatical enthusiasm to build a European spot in the heart of the Middle East they were determined to vandalize the landscape bringing into reality the apocalyptic verse: "the rugged shall be made level".
    For two thousand years "sat the Jews, by the rivers of Babylon, where they wept remembering Zion", but it took them only 50 years to turn Zion into a polluted place, where the rivers are poisoned with industrial filth and the seashores are contaminated by sewage. A land where the old Holy city of Jerusalem is a wretched place deprived of municipal services and the new city is crowded with beggars, messianic lunatics, and poor ultra-orthodox living on charity, as if the old European ghetto had been transported to the heart of the Judea's mountains. When the first pioneers the 'HALUTZIM' disembarked on the seashores of Jaffa they zealously compared their homeland to a beloved woman whom they promise to clothe with a dress of asphalt concrete and mortar. This drive to bury the Terra Sancta under a coat of concrete, to bulldoze and crack its mountains, to construct separation walls and to offend their next-door neighbors, manifests gross insensitivity regarding a homeland as a 'gift' that should be treated with com-passion. A belongingness to a homeland denotes responsibility and commitment to its history, and not the other way round. People who are oblivious to the idea that a homeland is a gift of destiny do not deserve the gift. The Jewish occupation of Palestine is distinguished from all other White Man colonization, since apart from indifference to the place and its inhabitants, it epitomizes an oblivious attitude to their own History.
    The mutual covenant between God and his chosen people never included 'strangers', since Gentiles were always considered by the Jews as non-beings. It is clearly declared in the 1967 victorious song of praise "Jerusalem of Gold":
    The Zionists imagined Zion as a place where they will feel ”at home” and thereby fulfill their destiny. They thought of cultivating it and turning it back into the land of Milk and Honey, but at the same time they lacked any knowledge about the place and its inhabitants. Right from the beginning, there was no intention of dwelling.
    Israeli Jews queuing at the doors of the Polish, Estonian and the Lithuanian Embassies begging for an EU passport, do they have the intention to dwell?
    The old role of the Wandering Jew being dispersed among the gentiles is still being played out awaiting those who do not dwell.

  5. I wasn't sure whether to post what appears to be the ramblings of someone not quite all there but Gidi doubts Atzmon's Revisionist Zionist grandfather. Atzmon boasts about him in a Brighton talk on his blog and you can read that 'Gilad Atzmon was born in Tel Aviv in 1963 and grew up in Jerusalem. "It was a regular secular childhood," he says, "with a right-wing Jabotinskyite grandfather. I wasn't ashamed of him, no way. I understood where he was coming from. I understood where I was coming from." -Haaretz

    As for all communist parties being anti-Zionist, not so. All the communist parties in 1947 supported creating the Israeli state as a Jewish state.

  6. I am not aware and not interested in this person Atzmon grandfather, I am talking about his Mother.
    read his and her article and see the similarity .
    He was raised to follow, that's why he is a Psycho case.
    Regarding the communist party, as you know the USSR was sure Israel is going to be a communist state, as most of the eastern block, that's why they instructed the communist party to support the creation, once the reality changed, they went anti Zionist.

    I am amazed of your ignorance.

  7. Gidi

    you should try not to be so arrogant given your own knowledge is so slight. You may not be interested in Atzmon's grandfather but I am. And more to the point it is Atzmon who cites his grandfather as being an important part of his development. A member of the fascist Irgun Zvai Leumi.

    His mother is of no interest to me, other than that she developed his impenetrably dense prose masquerading as philosophy.

    Nor am I at all sure that Stalin believed Israel would turn communist. If he did then that shows the idiocy and stupidity of Stalinism, on a part with its pact with Hitler and its belief that Russia could be part of the pact with Italy, Japan and Germany.

    Stalin's purpose was different. To get British imperialism out of the Middle East and to use Zionism as the means. As we all know US imperialism replaced it and was, of course, far worse.

  8. Am I arrogant? guess you never read your comments.
    Well his grandpa can be another Atzmon story, as he made up stories about his Army been a Medic (played sax in the airforce band), it means he never been a rebel as those who refuse to go to the army, his stupid story about the "light" he saw in Lebanon, is as stupid as he is, as he was there maybe one day to play with the orchestra, as a tourist and what he saw is less then what he could have seen in any other camp.
    then after the army he used to play with the most Zionist singers, playing the most Zionist songs and then Klezmer music with a religious Dou.
    he never made it in Israel and even trying to be the king of klezmer music didn't work for him he was bitten again and again by Giora Fideman.
    His grandpa could have another name and as Atzmon is the biggest liar, this is another fabrication.
    BTW he mentioned that his parents were also Zionist.
    well his mother, works for the ministry of education and the Heb university.
    she never ever publish any anti Zionist nor anti Jewish article in Israel, only in English and out side of Israel, as she cared about her career (what a rebel) same as her son.
    if you did not get yet, 90% of his mania is to get publicity and push his Music low career.
    Stalin was sure Israel is going to be a USSR base, a looney as all the others communist .
    As I grew up from this scene (guess you never had), its a Toxicated Addiction been a rebel especially a left rebel.

  9. My only comment is that much of this is interesting but Stalinism and Communism were not the same thing. Stalinism was the antithesis of communism with its personal dictatorship. It's no accident that in the purges, Stalin eliminated virtually all of the old Bolsheviks.

    Stalin's about turn, which was opposed most vehemenly by the Jewish members of the Iraqi CP, which at the time was very strong, helped destroy the influence of the CP in the Arab world. Utterly criminal.

  10. This is a long discussion, see that every place were communism came into practise it always completely failed (removed) or you find excuses why and how its a antithesis you name it.
    I guess its a jewish phenomena, as thier condition was mostly bad, they always adopted or were Attracted to everything that can change thier situation.
    I recall my uncle that risked his life to hang the red flag when the russians chased the germans away, he was a "burned communist" in his older life just raising the word made him loose his temper.
    The only place where I think it worked for a short time were the Israeli Kibutz, but it melted in 2 generations.
    It will remain a western Intelectual caffe theory discussion and a dream of young people who think there is a better way untill they join the real life.
    As I mentioned I grew up I don't even meet those people anymore.

  11. Given the failures of capitalism, there is no need to justify the failure to achieve socialism or communism. But the latter has to be distinguished from Stalinism which clearly had nothing to do with either.

    As far as the Kibbutzim are concerned they were never socialist. They were stockade and watchtower settlements and they were the advanced guard of the JNF and the Jewish Agency's Land Settlement Division under Josef Weitz.

    They were also racially exclusive communities and Arabs were barred from membership.

  12. Guess everything under Zionism for you is a disaster, read some more and open out your brainwashed mind
    The beginning of the Kibutz movement in the early days, were an experiment to experience socialism as written in the book.
    Those who came from Russia were so disappointed from the socialism in Russia that were obsessed to have the REAL Socialism, as those were young intellectuals they took it even to the extreme .
    What the hell are you talking about, sure it had to do with guard of the JNF, as they were attacked stupid, there was not a state your british imperialist did not give a damn about them so they had to protect themselves.
    Regarding the issue of "racially exclusive communities and Arabs were barred from membership" how can I not be arrogant as you are so ignorant, as what kind of situation are you talking about, it was a stage of war between the two (again I am talking before the creation of Israel in all my comments) what kind of a stupid argument you raised up.
    Give me a break........... your brainwashed mind will not give any credit, that's why I left this movement, you are the same example how the human mind can get so narrow and computerised and follow blinded some ideas and leave your basic common sense behind.

  13. Gidi

    your anger and frustration shows in you lack of grasp of the facts. Yes a few socialists came from Russia who were disappointed with Soviet style socialism, but what does that suggest? That Zionism turned even the best people.

    The brainwashing is all yours. There was no war before 1947-8 and certainly not before 1936. In fact the first kvutza, Deganiah, was founded 1908/9. But it settled the land of Arab peasants whom it promptly drove out. Classic colonialism, even for your befuddled racist mind that accepts the eviction of non-Jews.

    But don't take my word that the Kibbutzim were not experiments in socialism but the kind of collective effort you often see in early settler-colonialism.

    Noah Lucas, who was a well-respect Zionist historian, described in the Modern History of Israel (p.56) how the Kvutza, forerunners of the Kibbutzim but which were much smaller, were 'the result of
    an alliance between the embryonic labour movement and the Zionist financial institutions. The pragmatism of the more radical socialists among the pioneers was revealed in their readiness to enter such an alliance with the Jewish bourgeoisie abroad.'

    And it was an associate of Arthur Ruppin, Professor Franz Oppenheimer, who: 'propagated co-operative theories in Palestine... The Kvutza did not originate as a deliberate social experiment. Its forms were elaborated by accretion in the school of circumstances.'

    And it was Ruppin himself, no socialist, who summed it up best:

    'I can say with absolute certainty: those enterprises in Palestine which are most profit bearing for the businessman are almost the least profitable for the national effort and per contra many enterprises, which are least profitable for the businessman are of high national value.' Ruppin; Building Israel, New York 1949 pp. 47, September 1965.

    Arthur Ruppin was not merely no socialist but a devotee of the racial sciences, who paid a special visit to Professor Hans Gunther, installed by the Nazis as Professor at Jenna University, in the summer of 1933, in order to share ideas about the fitness of Jews racially to create their own state and much else besides. Gunther was the ideological mentor of Himmler no less.

    Socialist did you say? Try opening your mind and stop parrotting Zionist slogans of no relevance.

  14. "what does that suggest? That Zionism turned even the best people."
    That's your brainwashed head, Who mentioned a suggestion, I gave examples and you run for your stupid conclusions.
    If I was to suggest something is to show how pathetic communist/socialist/Trotskyst/marxist you name it today are, What's the connection to Zionism at all.

    Many of those socialist that came from Russia and Europe disappointed with Soviet style socialism after, who wanted to built up a better Socialism, ran back to Europe as they discovered, that been a real Socialist is Beyond sitting in "coffee houses" and discussing ideology as most of you do, but once you have to contribute hard work... that's too much.

    degania was founded in 1910 on
    The area of "Umm Juni" land belonged to the owner of Persian origin bahai. The area was purchased in 1903 by Haim Margolis and then moved to purchased lands of Bab-al-Tum.

    Your Attempt to show that there was NO war before 1947 and certainly not before 1936 (good that you did now try to gap it more), is nothing but a Pathetic Lie, what are u trying to show, that is was a Happy partnership before those dates.
    There was always a tension and since "Balfour Declaration" arabs attacked In 1919 Arab attacks intensified in communities in Kfar Giladi in 1921 - there were bloody riots too,
    Events of the riots ( 1929 ) were a series of riots violence During a week of events 133 Jews were killed and many wounded.

    So your argument regarding the "racially exclusive communities and Arabs were barred from membership" is completely foolish, as how can you blame some one of been racial, when you are in constant fight, but again, it is your brainwashed mind.

  15. You're beginning to rant Gidi. Use the term 'lie' again and this exchange is terminated. Likewise any other formulation such as 'your brainwashed head'. You're the one who is brainwashed as are all Zionist daleks.

    Don't make assumptions about me. I'm an activist you are a Zionist supporter of racism in Israel.

    I didn't say there was no tension, riots, attacks or whatever. I said there is no war. Try getting your head around the difference. Of course the Arabs resisted what they saw as an attempt to begin driving them out. Why else were kibbutzim, these socialist paradises, Jewish only? Since they were racist institutions from the start they could hardly be socialist unless, like Hitler, yhou believe that there is a 'national socialism'.

    And since you don't get it I'll repeat it. Colonisers never made the indigenous people they were replacing, exploiting, driving out, part of their institutions. Zionism was no different in that respect. Any idiot, even you Gidi, could tell that a Jewish State meant no Arabs or very few. Hence the 'demographic fears' in Israel today of an Arab majority.


Please submit your comments below