Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Communist Parties have always supported Israel's right to exist

CeJ Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:29:11 -0700

>>In general, the Communist Parties agreed on such. The CPUSA certainly
wasn't the only one ( smile)<<

But the original point was and is: CPs haven't ALWAYS supported the
creation of a Jewish state in Palestine (now called Israel), nor did
they do so before many US and UK politicians who were most decidedly
not of the left (see the thread title, taken from something you wrote
on LBO-T). Most likely one key issue hardly discussed in this
otherwise good piece at ahram is that Germany ceded territory to
Poland, and Poland didn't want to re-settle the Jews, nor did the Jews
want to stay in a ruined Poland. So perhaps one Soviet Union goal was
to make peace and settle things in E. Europe by getting rid of the
Jewish refugees and survivors of the Holocaust.

It basically goes back to a shift in policy that came out of the
Soviet Union, obviously instigated by Stalin and his top advisors.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/897/op6.htm

Crucially, there are two curious, unexpected, twists to the tale
concerning the superpower states that had just embarked upon their
Cold War rivalry, the US and USSR. All those interested in this
intriguing and surprising history would be rewarded in reading an
enlightening paper by French historian Laurent Rucker, who utilises
voluminous primary research from Soviet archives ("Moscow's surprise:
The Soviet-Israeli Alliance of 1947-1949", Woodrow Wilson Centre for
International Scholars, Working Paper 46), the main points of which I
elaborate upon, whilst drawing my own conclusions.

Put briefly, there is compelling evidence to suggest that had the USSR
not supported the partition of Palestine and Israel's creation, such a
partition would not have happened. On the one hand, the US's support
for the partition plan was by no means as strong as is ordinarily
imagined. We surely need to recognise that the political terrain in
the US with regard to a Jewish state was very different 60 years ago
than it is now. On the other hand, the USSR's late change of stance
and its uncompromising support for the Zionist project during the
fateful years of 1947-48 was arguably the decisive factor.

Recognising that it had no weight in the Middle East, during World War
II the Soviet Union opened embassies in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq
in an attempt to exert some influence. A corollary to this endeavour
was weakening and removing Britain's influence in the region and
somehow forging divisions between the UK and the US. It was this
thinking that drove Soviet policies. When the Anglo-American Committee
of Inquiry into the Fate of European Jews was set up in January 1946,
the erstwhile ally USSR, which had a legitimate interest in the issue
as there were about five million Jews living under Soviet rule, was
simply excluded, the crucial reason being that Britain and the US did
not want Stalin to poke his nose into the Palestine issue.

Yet after the war, there arose the issue of some quarter of a million
displaced Jews in Eastern Europe that was now under the Soviet sphere
of influence. It was the issue of the settlement of the bulk of these
that proved fundamental to what happened. The Soviets and East
European regimes failed to do what was incumbent upon them, that is,
to re-settle displaced Jews in their old homes and counter any
hostility from the local population. Naturally, therefore, many of
these displaced persons wished to emigrate, the preferred option, and
understandably so, being the US which had not suffered destruction
during the war. But the US operated a closed-door policy to the
"tired, poor huddled Jewish masses yearning to be free" -- thus
enabling the second preferred option, Palestine, to come to the fore.
This conveniently suited the Americans and the Soviets, as well as the
East European regimes (none of whom wanted the displaced persons) so
that the Zionist programme of settling European Jewry in Palestine
quickly gathered momentum. Britain, however, was at first wary as it
did not wish to alienate the Arab world.

The Zionist organisations had foresight and forged links with Soviet
diplomats, quietly calling for support for their designs. This,
however, did not immediately lead to the USSR agreeing to a future
Jewish state in Palestine (which the USSR had never supported), though
the seeds were sown and came to fruition surprisingly soon. The
official USSR position was for the removal of the British mandate and
troops and for a unitary Palestine to be granted independence but
under UN "trusteeship" (meaning, under joint control of the "big
three" powers). In March 1947, the Near East Department of the Soviet
UN delegation accordingly argued for a "single democratic Palestine
that ensures that the peoples living there will enjoy equal national
and democratic rights".

A month later, there was a dramatic U- turn. At the extraordinary
session of the UN General Assembly, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
Andrei Gromyko was instructed to present the new line. For the first
time the USSR advocated the creation of a Jewish state. The new line
was duly presented to the General Assembly on 29 November 1947 in the
historic vote to partition Palestine. A two-thirds majority was needed
and here the role of the USSR was again decisive when it pressured
Byelorussia, Ukraine, Poland and Czechoslovakia to also vote "Yes".
Therefore, it needs to be stressed that if the USSR had adhered to its
earlier position of opposing the partition of Palestine, it is highly
improbable that Israel would have been created in May 1948. Indeed,
the likely outcome would have been a unified Palestine under UN
trusteeship.

However, after the expected opposition of Arab states and with
violence in Palestine itself, the US began to have doubts. On 19 March
1948, the US ambassador to the UN argued for a provisional trusteeship
that had been the USSR's original plan. Gromyko countered this in an
uncompromising, de facto Zionist, speech at the 30 March meeting of
the UN Security Council that secured partition: "... the only way to
reduce bloodshed is the prompt and effective creation of two states in
Palestine. If the United States and some other states block the
implementation of the partition and regard Palestine as an element in
their economic and military- strategic considerations, then any
decision on the future of Palestine, including the establishment of a
trusteeship regime, will mean the transformation of Palestine into a
field of strife and dissension between the Arabs and the Jews and will
only increase the number of victims."

Moreover, despite a UN weapons embargo on Palestine, Czech weapons
were sold, with Soviet knowledge, to Zionists in Palestine that
facilitated the expulsion of some 750,000 Palestinians from their
land. The rest, as they say, is history. As Rucker summarises in his
insightful paper, "Moscow provided political, military, and
demographic support to Israel", for the absurd reason that the only
means of weakening Britain's power in the Middle East was by
supporting the Zionist movement. It didn't take long for this policy
to unravel. The various communist parties in Arab states immediately
suffered a haemorrhage of members as the USSR's reputation and
influence in the Arab world was severely damaged; whilst the new state
of Israel unequivocally joined the Western camp. Britain's influence
did decline but rather than divisions arising, Britain remained firmly
wedded to the US, helped by Marshall Aid reconstruction funds.
Moreover, without demurring, it settled into its new role as the US's
junior partner. The net effect of the USSR's policy turn was,
therefore, precisely the opposite of what had been intended. The
Zionists had played a brilliant hand as they cleverly finessed Stalin
and his cohorts.

The truly shocking fact in this version of the "Great Game" is that
the victims were contemptuously ignored, as if they were mere cattle.
It is my contention that the Soviet Union's role in the creation of
Israel and the Nakba should be accorded greater significance than the
Balfour Declaration of 1917; yet it is the latter that attracts far
more attention.

So when Israelis and their supporters celebrate the 60th anniversary,
they ought to give a special toast to the role played by the Soviet
Union; equally, as Palestinians drown in sorrow for the Nakba, they
ought to raise an accusatory finger at those who took them to the path
of perdition, not least the Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Communist_Party

In 1943 the party split, with the Arab members forming the National
Liberation League in 1944.[5] The PCP and NLL both initially opposed
the 1947 UN Partition Plan, but accepted it after the Soviet Union
endorsed it.[6] The PCP changed its name to MAKEI, the Communist Party
of Eretz Israel, after endorsing partition in October 1947. This was
the first time the communists had used the term 'Eretz Israel' ('Land
of Israel'). However, it had been a widespread practice in Mandate
Palestine to translate 'Palestine' as 'Eretz Israel' when translating
into Hebrew.[7] The party still viewed partition as a temporary detour
on the road to a binational state.[8] The two parties maintained
contact during the 1948 war, and after the war the NLL merged with
MAKI (the new name adopted by MAKEI, meaning the Communist Party of
Israel) within the new state's borders.[9]

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Communist Parties have always supported Israel's right to exist

Reply via email to