PFLP rejects attempts to impose Arab normalization under cover of "peace" initiatives

[luchtoibre]

http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=pflp-rejects-all-attempts-impose-arab-normalizatio[/URL]
PFLP rejects all attempts to impose Arab normalization under the cover of "peace" initiatives

[URL="http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=10th-anniversary-no-imperialist-settlement-yes-peo"]http://www.pflp.ps/english/files/images/094-PCD1205-022.jpg (http://www.pflp.ps/english/)
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demanded on September 8, 2009 that the Arab League and the Palestine Liberation Organization leadership end any and all reliance on the so-called "peace" initiatives and projects, and instead take a firm stance against the occupation state and its war crimes.

Most recently, the occupation state's criminal Netanyahu government has approved hundreds of new settlement units in the West Bank, as well as officially opening a new Zionist settlement in the West Bank, next to the existing settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, that will attempt to divide the West Bank in two.

The PFLP called upon official Arab forces to rise to a minimum level of national responsibility and confront the continual Israeli aggression against the Arab people and their rights, and take action to confront the occupation's crimes in Jerusalem, its expulsion of its Arab people and its harms to its holy sites, and its plans to increase its colonization of the West Bank, and leave aside so-called "peace initiatives."

The PFLP warned against any normalization with the occupation, noting that the so-called "settlement freeze" is an unacceptable cost for normalization with the occupier, and saying that these sorts of Zionist manipulations should and must remain unacceptable, and that the masses of the Arab people will never accept normalization with the racist occupier that steals our land and oppresses our people and that any talk of bartering a so-called "settlement freeze" for normalization is essentially approval of and collaboration with the occupier.

Time and time again, U.S. promises of "peace initiatives" have been proven to be false. A temporary pause in the construction of new settlement units, while leaving settlements intact throughout our land, while the occupation continues, while Jerusalem is occupied, while millions of Palestinian refugees are denied the right to return home, is no concession at all by the occupation state, said the PFLP's spokesperson.

The PFLP said instead that the Arab League should be planning with the Non-Aligned Movement and other progressive international forces to pressure the United Nations and international institutions to bring the occupation and its leaders to justice and put them on trial in international courts for their crimes against our people.

The PFLP continued to say that it is time for the Arab League to put its statements in support of Palestinians into action and uphold its responsibilities to the Palestinian people.

At the same time, the PFLP spokesperson noted that the Front has no illusions about the role of reactionary Arab regimes, who are deeply linked themselves to U.S. imperialism, in securing justice and liberation for the Palestinian people and the Arab nation, and expressed its utmost confidence, instead, in the role and power of the Arab people.

In addition, Comrade Abu Ahmad Fuad, member of the Political Bureau of the PFLP, said in reference to the alleged dispute between the U.S. government and Israel over new settlement construction, that the U.S. and Israel are strategic, long-term allies and any perceived differences are merely debates about image management and temporary tactics. In fact, Comrade Fuad said, if the new settlements are built, it is with the green light (public or covert) of the U.S. administration.

He said further that "all of what we hear from the lips of the officials of the Obama State Department has no value and no sense, because these statements are deceptive efforts intended only to beautify the image of the United States, which will not fool the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim people."

Comrade Fuad further called upon the Executive Committee of the PLO to officially and formally repudiate all negotiations with the Zionist enemy and condemn the U.S. position. He emphasized the need to build national unity through comprehensive and inclusive national dialogue, in order to confront new threats of Arab countries' normalization and the crimes of the occupier.

[KC]

What's missing from this article is the PFLP's concrete position on the settlements and what they think the way forward is from here. All that is contained in this article is a rejection of the PLO conciliation without a viable alternative.

Judging from the PFLP's past actions it seems that they have no alternative.

[Pogue]

without commenting on the groups politics or actions at all, thats one fucking cool looking poster

[Yehuda Stern]

The PFLP can claim all they want to reject attempts at normalization, but they accept the two state solution and were on the side of Fatah when it fought to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government in June 2006 with Zionist and American backing. The article is full of radical sounding phrases, but the truth is that the front's nationalist outlook has led it, like all Arab nationalists, to make compromises in practice with imperialism and its local agents.

[KC]

The PFLP can claim all they want to reject attempts at normalization, but they accept the two state solution and were on the side of Fatah when it fought to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government in June 2006 with Zionist and American backing.

Do you have any links to primary sources for this? I was just wondering because I've heard this stated before but never actually seen any primary sources verifying it.

[Leo]

To my knowledge, the PFLP took a position not supporting either Fatah or Hamas specifically - or sort of supporting them both I suppose, arguing that Palestinian nationalists should not fight amongst each other. On the other hand they have been getting much closer to Hamas, cooperating in attacks and all, and especially after the murder of Ali Abu Mustafa resorting to suicide bombings also. Since the recent attacks on Gaza by the IDF, again to my knowledge, the PFLP got very, very close to Hamas, practically tailing them now.

Yehuda of course is geographically a lot closer to this than I am though so what I know might be wrong since information has the tendency of sort of getting a bit deformed while traveling in the Middle East.

[gorillafuck]

The PFLP can claim all they want to reject attempts at normalization, but they accept the two state solution and were on the side of Fatah when it fought to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government in June 2006 with Zionist and American backing. The article is full of radical sounding phrases, but the truth is that the front's nationalist outlook has led it, like all Arab nationalists, to make compromises in practice with imperialism and its local agents.
Sources?

[KC]

To my knowledge, the PFLP took a position not supporting either Fatah or Hamas specifically - or sort of supporting them both I suppose, arguing that Palestinian nationalists should not fight amongst each other. On the other hand they have been getting much closer to Hamas, cooperating in attacks and all, and especially after the murder of Ali Abu Mustafa resorting to suicide bombings also. Since the recent attacks on Gaza by the IDF, again to my knowledge, the PFLP got very, very close to Hamas, practically tailing them now.

Yehuda of course is geographically a lot closer to this than I am though so what I know might be wrong since information has the tendency of sort of getting a bit deformed while traveling in the Middle East.

I actually believed the exact same thing, which is why I'm interested in hearing more about their position on Fatah.

[Yehuda Stern]

1. On the two state question: like most sellout Palestinian groups, the PFLP claims to not accept the two state solution as a final goal, but instead as a "step forward." Of course, such a "solution" is only a step forward towards the further domination of the Palestinian people by the Zionist state. Source: (from PFLP English website (http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=pflp-affirms-plo-membership-does-not-mean-acceptan))


The PFLP does not accept the "two-state solution" as the final goal for the Palestinian people or the Palestinian cause, but instead views the strategic goal as the liberation of all of Palestine, said Comrade Marwan Fahoum, "Abu Sami," a member of the Political Bureau of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine said on March 2, 2009.

The PFLP's acceptance of the establishment a Palestinian state on all territories occupied in 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital, and the return of all refugees to their homes from which they were driven, is part of the only acceptable solution to progress towards achieving the strategic goal, the liberation of all of Palestine, said Comrade Fahoum.By the way, the most amusing thing about this statement is its headline: "PLO membership does not mean acceptance of the two state solution." Clearly it does; and clearly it means tailing the pro-imperialist Fatah which has sold out to Zionism on countless occasions.

2. As for the PFLP in the civil war, I should rephrase. I don't know of any evidence that PFLP fighters actually took part in the military conflict itself on the side of Fatah; however, they certainly didn't do anything to try and stop Dahlan's goons from trying to overthrow the elected government, against the wishes of most Palestinians. They preferred to stay inside the PLO and, as usual, tail Fatah. Only later, when the Zionists stepped up the persecution of the PFLP, did it begin to cooperate with Hamas in some demonstrations. So what Leo says is true now, but wasn't true back in 2006.

[luchtoibre]

What's missing from this article is the PFLP's concrete position on the settlements and what they think the way forward is from here. All that is contained in this article is a rejection of the PLO conciliation without a viable alternative.

Judging from the PFLP's past actions it seems that they have no alternative.well they[pflp,dflp etc] go along with what international law says.that the settlements have to be dismantled.





To my knowledge, the PFLP took a position not supporting either Fatah or Hamas specifically - or sort of supporting them both I suppose, arguing that Palestinian nationalists should not fight amongst each other. ... Since the recent attacks on Gaza by the IOF, again to my knowledge, the PFLP got very, very close to Hamas, practically tailing them now.....

I actually believed the exact same thing, which is why I'm interested in hearing more about their position on Fatah.the PFLP had nothing to do with the fateh-hamas conflict,they were more of an intermadiary in stopping the fighting.
also check....http://www.pflp.ps/english
http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=document-5th-conference-popular-front-liberation-p



1. On the two state question: like most sellout Palestinian groups, the PFLP claims to not accept the two state solution as a final goal, but instead as a "step forward." Of course, such a "solution" is only a step forward towards the further domination of the Palestinian people by the Zionist state. Source: (from PFLP English website (http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=pflp-affirms-plo-membership-does-not-mean-acceptan))

By the way, the most amusing thing about this statement is its headline: "PLO membership does not mean acceptance of the two state solution." Clearly it does; and clearly it means tailing the pro-imperialist Fatah which has sold out to Zionism on countless occasions.

2. As for the PFLP in the civil war, I should rephrase. I don't know of any evidence that PFLP fighters actually took part in the military conflict itself on the side of Fatah; however, they certainly didn't do anything to try and stop Dahlan's goons from trying to overthrow the elected government, against the wishes of most Palestinians. They preferred to stay inside the PLO and, as usual, tail Fatah. Only later, when the Zionists stepped up the persecution of the PFLP, did it begin to cooperate with Hamas in some demonstrations. So what Leo says is true now, but wasn't true back in 2006.i'm glad you got the facts right on the PFLP 2 state policy.and rejection from day 1 of the oslo agreements,between fatah leaders and the zionists.also the central point being the right of return,but i wouldn't just put that down to the policy of any faction..
also, i thought hamas overthrew the PA in gaza?

[luchtoibre]

interview from ma'an (p.a. backed) news agency from beginning of year

http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=pflp-interview-ma-news-agency-israeli-aggression-g
PFLP Interview with Ma'an News Agency on Israeli Aggression in Gaza

http://www.pflp.ps/english/files/images/palestinian-flag.jpg (http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=node/958)
Ma'an News Service conducted the following interview with a spokesperson for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine on January 17, 2009. In the interview, the PFLP discusses the centrality of Palestinian resistance and the ongoing aggression against the Palestinian people, particularly the Israeli aggression that began on December 27, 2008 in Gaza.

Ma'an: The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and its armed wing, the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, is currently embroiled in battles against Israeli ground troops in the Gaza Strip, while continuing to launch projectiles across the Green Line toward Israel.

Ma’an spoke with an official spokesperson of the leftist, secular movement in Gaza to shed some light on the current fight with Israel and the state of Palestinian politics vis-à-vis both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

The following interview was conducted via email:

Ma’an: What is the Popular Front’s position on why Israel launched its massive onslaught in Gaza?

PFLP: Israel launched its massacres and war crimes against our people in line with a historic objective - an attempt to eliminate the Palestinian resistance, particularly in Gaza. Much as it sought to do in Lebanon in 2006, it aimed to separate the resistance from the people and secure an elimination of the resistance and undermining our Palestinian cause and the rights of our people.

Israel's schemes against our people and our rights can only be enacted - despite the complicity of the U.S., Arab regimes and part of the Palestinian "leadership" - by the elimination of the Palestinian resistance.

Israel is learning now, despite its brutality and its utter criminality, and its practices of genocide, that much akin to Lebanon in 2006, our people are the core, the cradle and the steadfastness of our resistance, and their assaults will never defeat our people nor our determination to uphold our rights, to return, to self-determination and to sovereignty.

Ma’an: Is Israel’s air, sea and land incursion really about Hamas and the rockets?

PFLP: The rockets are both a practical and a symbolic representation of our resistance to the occupier. They are a constant reminder that the occupier is in fact an occupier, and that no matter how they may engage in sieges, massacres, fence us in, deny us the basic human needs of life, we will continue to resist and we will continue to hold fast to our fundamental rights, and we will not allow them to be destroyed. So long as one rocket is launched at the occupier, our people, our resistance and our cause is alive.

This is why they targeted the rockets - the rockets do make the occupier insecure, because every one is a symbol and a physical act of our rejection to their occupation, to their massacres, to their crimes, and to their continuing assaults on our people. Each rocket says that we will not allow their so-called "solutions" that are based on the abrogation and denial of our rights.

Ma’an: What about Israel’s upcoming parliamentary elections; did that play a role in their decision to attack Gaza?

PFLP: In addition, this was certainly related to the Israeli elections - to bolster the reputation of Kadima and particularly of Livni and Barak, on the backs and with the blood of over 1,000 Palestinian dead. That this is a distinguishing and positive factor in these elections says a great deal about the nature of Israel and Zionism.

Ma’an: How many PFLP/Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades fighters have been killed or injured during the Israeli invasion and/or airstrikes?

PFLP: We do not release such statistics or information at this time as it is only helpful to the enemy military assault on our people. However, AAMB members have been heavily active in all forms of resistance against the invaders and occupiers.

Ma’an: Have Brigades members been active in resistance against the invading army?

PFLP: AAMB [Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades] has consistently launched multiple rockets on a daily basis, and has distinguished itself particularly in the use of roadside bombs, car bombs and other explosive devices that have seriously damaged and destroyed occupation tanks and other military vehicles, and AAMB fighters are participating in all battles at all levels.

AAMB is also working intimately and in coordination with all other resistance forces in a united struggle to confront the enemy and unify our resistance to its crimes and massacres, and is involved at all levels of coordination and resistance.

Ma’an: Under what circumstances would the PFLP back a ceasefire with Israel?

PFLP: We were opposed to the so-called "calm" or "ceasefire" [from June 19 to December 19 2008] because we saw it as dangerous to our people and we believe, in the end, our analysis was proven to be correct.

Israel forced an end to the "ceasefire" through its attacks and assassinations - and then used it as an excuse to attack the Palestinian people [for example, on 4 November airstrikes killed five militants and a civilian], a goal it had all along, and using a plan of attack developed before and during the so-called "Ceasefire."

The resistance, in a unified manner, may always decide what tactics to use at any given time. We demand an end to the massacres, an end to the occupation forces on our land, and the full, immediate and unconditional opening of all crossings - particularly Rafah crossing - and an end to the siege against our people. But we will never concede our fundamental rights - our right to resist, our right to defend our people, our right to return, our right to self-determination and sovereignty - in the name of a so-called "ceasefire," which is what Israel wants.

Ma’an: What is the relationship between Hamas and the PFLP like today?

PFLP: The relationship between Hamas and the PFLP is defined by resistance now.

Ma’an: But the PFLP is a secular movement; does that create difficulties working with Hamas, which believes in an Islamic society and government?

PFLP: Both Hamas and the PFLP are in the camp of resistance, the camp of defending our people, our cause and our fundamental rights.

Both the PFLP and Hamas reject so-called "negotiations", reject cooperation with the occupier, and reject any so-called political solutions based on the denial and abrogation of the rights of our people, and both stand united in resistance to the massacres and genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. This is the unity, and the relationship, that matters now - unity, in struggle, for our people, our cause, and our rights.

Ma’an: Turning to politics, what is the PFLP’s position on the legitimacy of Mahmoud Abbas, whose term officially ended on 9 January?

PFLP: The only Palestinian legitimacy that matters now is the legitimacy of resistance. This is the definition of our national unity - confronting the occupier and its crimes against our people and upholding and defending our people and our rights. The legitimacy now is not that of the "Palestinian Authority" - legitimacy is formed by standing with the resistance, with our steadfast people, against the crimes of the occupier.

Ma’an: Does the PFLP believe that, given the circumstances, Palestinians should focus on the Gaza Strip and less on domestic politics? Or is the role of Palestinian politics more important than ever?

PFLP: This is a defining moment for the Palestinian national movement and the Palestinian cause, facing an enemy bent on its destruction, and the question is for all - to be with the resistance or to stand aside and thus allow the assault to continue. Every bit of Palestinian political legitimacy at the present time derives from the answer to that question.

Ma’an: What is the state of the PFLP and other resistance organizations in the West Bank?

PFLP: The West Bank is also under a state of siege of a different type - the siege of occupation, of 11,000 political prisoners, of constant land confiscation, the settlement building, the erection of the annexation wall, and the other ongoing crimes against our people. In fact, Israel is counting on the eyes of the world to be turned away from the West Bank due to its massacres in Gaza, in order to carry out yet more land confiscation and attacks in the West Bank.

We will not allow our people, in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as in Palestine '48 [Palestinians inside Israel] and in exile, to be divided.

Ma’an: Does the PFLP expect Palestinians outside of the Strip will rise up against the occupation, especially in light of Israel’s recent atrocities in Gaza?

PFLP: We are one nation, one people and one cause, and all of the enemy's plans to undermine that unity will fail, and that dedication to resist and uphold our national rights to return, to self-determination, to freedom and liberation, to sovereignty, will ensure our victory and our unity of our people, our land and our cause.
PFLP Interview with Ma'an News Agency on Israeli Aggression in Gaza

[Yehuda Stern]

i'm glad you got the facts right on the PFLP 2 state policy.and rejection from day 1 of the oslo agreements,between fatah leaders and the zionists.also the central point being the right of return,but i wouldn't just put that down to the policy of any faction..
also, i thought hamas overthrew the PA in gaza?

You obviously don't get my point - their mealy mouthed "rejection" of Oslo notwithstanding, the PFLP remains inside the PLO and refuses to reject a two state solution outright! Even in the interview you posted, the PFLP representative, despite being full of radical phrases, refuses to completely rule out any compromise with Israel!

And no, Hamas did not overthrow the PA - it won the elections, after which Israel opened up a vicious diplomatic and military campaign against it, which culminated in Fatah's attempted coup against it in 2006. So it was not Hamas that has overthrown the PA - it's Fatah that tried to overthrow Hamas.

[Saorsa]

By the way, the most amusing thing about this statement is its headline: "PLO membership does not mean acceptance of the two state solution." Clearly it does; and clearly it means tailing the pro-imperialist Fatah which has sold out to Zionism on countless occasions.I disagree. From what I understand, the PFLP want to try and unite the Palestinian movement, and seethe PLO as the best vehicle for doing that based on it's historical role in the struggle. They've withdrawn from the PLO several times in protest against various sell-outs, and for a time formed the Rejectionist Front. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejectionist_Front)

They say that "reform of the Palestine Liberation Organization is a national imperative, stressing the need to include the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Islamic Jihad in the organization" and call for the (http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=comrade-mizher-plo-must-be-radically-restructured-)"democratic and inclusive rebuilding of the PLO... including all factions, in order to protect the Palestinian cause against liquidation and destruction." (http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=comrade-mizher-plo-must-be-radically-restructured-)

Their line seems to be that the PLO can be reformed through a combination of popular pressure from without and struggle from within. Time will tell whether this is correct or not but it doesn't mean they've sold out and abandoned a one state solution.

[Yehuda Stern]

Their line seems to be that the PLO can be reformed through a combination of popular pressure from without and struggle from within. Time will tell whether this is correct or not but it doesn't mean they've sold out and abandoned a one state solution.This alone doesn't, but there are at least two pieces of evidence in this thread that they are willing to accept a two state solution: the quote in post #9, item 1, and the PFLP representative's refusal to flat out reject comrpomise with Israel in #11, which I have pointed out in #12.

At any rate, to continue to insist that the resistance be united with proved traitors and sellouts like Fatah is a huge betrayal on its own, especially when one couples it with the refusal of the PFLP, also visible in #11, to break with Mahmoud Abbas. This, of course, flows directly from the PFLP's Maoist outlook (namely, the bloc of classes), and shows the failure of Maoism in providing a way forward for the Palestinian struggle against Zionism.

[Leo]

I have a question for Yehuda: If the PFLP are betrayers for wanting to work with Fatah, and if Fatah are sell-outs because they have made deals with the Israelis and are policing West Bank as a proxy of imperialism, what does this make Hamas which was basically founded and funded by the Israelis and the Americans themselves?

[Yehuda Stern]

As likely to betray in the future; however, for the moment they are unable to do so, not because they are not interested but because the imperialists find it more convenient to stick with Fatah at the moment, and use Hamas as an excuse for this attacks on Gaza. If this is meant as a sting, though, it's misdirected, as the ISL never advocated any support for Hamas.

[Leo]

As likely to betray in the future; however, for the moment they are unable to do so, not because they are not interested but because the imperialists find it more convenient to stick with Fatah at the moment, and use Hamas as an excuse for this attacks on Gaza.OK, so you also agree that Hamas also in the end serves the agenda of imperialism, even if only creating an excuse for the attacks on Gaza.


If this is meant as a sting, though, it's misdirected, as the ISL never advocated any support for Hamas. Well, I'm pretty sure you argued for "military" support for Hamas but I might be wrong. In any case I did not mean it as a sting. I do have other questions though. If or since you, as you say (and rightfully, in my opinion) you reject all the (bourgeois) political forces in Palestine such as Hamas, Fatah and PFLP and acknowledge that neither has anything to offer, do you support what is called "the Palestinian Resistance"? Do you think there is a "Palestinian Resistance" outside of these organizations?

[luchtoibre]

You obviously don't get my point - their mealy mouthed "rejection" of Oslo notwithstanding, the PFLP remains inside the PLO and refuses to reject a two state solution outright! Even in the interview you posted, the PFLP representative, despite being full of radical phrases, refuses to completely rule out any compromise with Israel!

the pflp view of the 2 state solution has been said,still like i say the right of return is a central point to all this.and what group in or outside palestine would agree to forgetting 'the right of return'.



At any rate, to continue to insist that the resistance be united with proved traitors and sellouts like Fatah is a huge betrayal on its own, especially when one couples it with the refusal of the PFLP, also visible in #11, to break with Mahmoud Abbas. This, of course, flows directly from the PFLP's Maoist outlook (namely, the bloc of classes), and shows the failure of Maoism in providing a way forward for the Palestinian struggle against Zionism.the pflp have no link with abass,PA etc,what link do you claim they have.?the fateh movement as an whole is another story.anyway a reformed PLO including hamas,pij,prc is a step forward in my opinion.how do you the palestinians gaining anything.by supporting hamas ?how do you see the immediate gaining of a one state.with the rightwing strengthening.at present?

[Yehuda Stern]

OK, so you also agree that Hamas also in the end serves the agenda of imperialism, even if only creating an excuse for the attacks on Gaza.

What I think doesn't matter; the imperialists make quite clear that they don't see Hamas as serving their interests, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to overthrow its government for so long.


Well, I'm pretty sure you argued for "military" support for Hamas but I might be wrong. In any case I did not mean it as a sting. I do have other questions though. If or since you, as you say (and rightfully, in my opinion) you reject all the (bourgeois) political forces in Palestine such as Hamas, Fatah and PFLP and acknowledge that neither has anything to offer, do you support what is called "the Palestinian Resistance"? Do you think there is a "Palestinian Resistance" outside of these organizations?

The ISL thinks the military victory of the Palestinian resistance, even under Hamas, against Israel serves the interests of the working class and damages those of the imperialists. There's a great deal of difference between and calling for political support to Hamas of any sort; on the contrary, the ISL warns that Hamas will also betray, has already betrayed several times (when it agreed to police Gaza's borders, for example), and that the only real way to advance the struggle against Zionism is by building a vanguard party in Palestine.

Again, whether or not I think there is a Palestinian Resistance outside of various organizations is irrelevant; the fact is that the first intifadah was not directly led by any of them, and that to this day the Palestinian resistance is composed of the great masses of the Palestinian people, most of whom certainly oppose the PLO and at least some I imagine already see Hamas for what it really is.


the pflp have no link with abass,PA etc,what link do you claim they have.?

The PFLP is a member party of the PLO, whose chairman is Abbas, and in which Fatah plays a lead role.


anyway a reformed PLO including hamas,pij,prc is a step forward in my opinion.how do you the palestinians gaining anything.by supporting hamas ?

I don't see how; to me it seems that every strengthening of the PLO strengthens the hold of the Palestinian bourgeoisie on the national liberation struggle and thus weakens the workers and allows the nationalists to make compromises on their backs. I do not suggest supporting Hamas; but it was criminal of the PFLP to stand idly by as Dahlan's Zionist-backed forces attempted to overthrow the government supported by most Palestinians!


how do you see the immediate gaining of a one state.with the rightwing strengthening.at present?

Do you mean the right wing in Israel or Palestine? Either way I don't see the relevance. Obviously we can't have one state now; but we can build the parties that could lead towards such a situation in the future. That is the task of revolutionaries in Palestine, certainly not to tail proven collaborators like the PLO!

[Leo]

What I think doesn't matter; the imperialists make quite clear that they don't see Hamas as serving their interests, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to overthrow its government for so long.

Well though, I don't think in this case it is the US or even Israel that is responsible for the conflict between Hamas and Fatah. It was the existing (secular) Arab states that was the most uncomfortable with Hamas due to their local interests, and which supported Fatah most strongly, while it was Iran and it's allies in the shia areas of Lebanon and Iraq which stood behind Hamas.

PLO has always been a force aligned with and closest to the Arab states, and it's reconciliation with the Israelis was a part of the reconciliation with the Israeli state of the Arab states. It is because Israel has good relations with the Arab states that the PLO is policing the West Bank on behalf of the Israelis.

As for Israel's attack on Gaza is hardly and attempt to overthrow Hamas. Hamas stayed safe, so nobily couragegously hiding behind the Palestinian working class masses who did the dying and I'm sure the IDF was well aware of this. On another point, I remember an Israeli officier himself admitting that they invaded Gaza due to the urging of the Arab states.

Lastly it is important to see that Israel and the US don't have identical interests at all. At the time of the Cold War, Israel was more or less an extension of the American imperialist block in the region while the Arab states were that of the USSR. With the USSR gone, though, I think the situation more complicated and chaotic.

I have one more question by the way. Do you regard the state of Israel to be imperialist?


The ISL thinks the military victory of the Palestinian resistance, even under Hamas, against Israel serves the interests of the working class and damages those of the imperialists.

OK, so you think that a Palestinian resistance against imperialism can be conducted by a force such as Hamas which was founded in the first place by imperialism and which served the interests of imperialism for a while, and which still does in providing an excuse to murder Palestinians?

And that the victory of an organization like Hamas, which for the sake of the interests of it's own masters and itself becomes a tool in this providing an excuse to murder Palestinians, and hides behind the Palestinian masses of workers while the IDF is butchering them, in the meanwhile suppressing every sort of dissidence from anyone, and of course all militant workers in Gaza, is somehow going to serve the interests of the working class and damage those of the imperialists?

Don't you see a contradiction in there?


There's a great deal of difference between and calling for political support to Hamas of any sort

Well but obviously if you think the victory of an organization serves the interests of the working class and damage those of imperialism, surely you support this organization?


on the contrary, the ISL warns that Hamas will also betray, has already betrayed several times

How many times can an organization betray?


Again, whether or not I think there is a Palestinian Resistance outside of various organizations is irrelevant

Why so?


the fact is that the first intifadah was not directly led by any of them

Well, the PLO assumed control pretty quickly.


and that to this day the Palestinian resistance is composed of the great masses of the Palestinian people

All movements which dominate the political arena are composed of great masses of the people. I don't think this says anything other than saying that the organizations in question had, and continue to have mass support.


most of whom certainly oppose the PLO and at least some I imagine already see Hamas for what it really is.

Well, I am sure there is a good amount of Palestiains, mostly from a working class background, who have a healthy resentment of the PLO, Hamas and the IDF. It is known that the Palestinian working class knows how to struggle despite all the odds and the war and suppressive bourgeois nationalist forces and all. I am not sure whether such militant workers can be categorized as a part of a national resistance though.

This being said, I would say that more or less the half of the Palestinian national movement is for and more or less the half is against the PLO. We could say the same thing about Hamas. I personally don't think any nationalist force in Palestine has got anything at all to offer the Palestinian working class.

[luchtoibre]

Comrade Jarrar: Obama "peace plan" is a front for normalization with the occupier

http://www.pflp.ps/english/files/images/Satellite.jpg (http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=node/576)
U.S. President Barack Obama's so-called plan for "peace" is solely about achieving the goals of the U.S. in full alignment with the occupation state, said Comrade Khalida Jarrar, member of the Political Bureau of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine on September 10, 2009.

In an interview with Aljazeera.net, Comrade Jarrar noted that this so-called "peace plan" is centered upon securing Arab normalization with the occupation state without ending the occupation, and said that the conception of the "Palestinian state" in Obama's plan (as has been widely leaked to the media) is the same as that of his predecessor, George W. Bush - a demilitarized, subservient mini-state made up of isolated cantons and without the right to return of Palestinian refugees.

Comrade Jarrar emphasized the attempt to link the Palestinian cause with an "international security force" to suppress Palestinian resistance is nothing but a diversion from the fact that the problem is the occupation, and that ending the occupation is not a matter of technical issues, but instead requires resistance.

http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=comrade-jarrar-obama-peace-plan-front-normalizatio

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't think in this case it is the US or even Israel that is responsible for the conflict between Hamas and Fatah. It was the existing (secular) Arab states that was the most uncomfortable with Hamas due to their local interests

That seems pretty far fetched to me. Israel and the USA certainly wouldn't fight any war for the Arab states unless that happened to coincide with their interests. So while you're right that the Arab states also want to put down any Palestinian uprisings - and Egypt has done just that when some Palestinians broke out of Gaza about a year ago - the cause of that is their servility towards imperialism, not the other way around.


It is because Israel has good relations with the Arab states that the PLO is policing the West Bank on behalf of the Israelis.


Well, it's a pretty big exaggeration to say that Israel has anything near good relations with the Arab states. Sure, when push comes to shove the Israeli imperialists will bail out the Arab capitalists and vice versa: like all capitalists they know how to unite against the workers (for example, Israel was helped by neighboring Arab states in breaking a strike by its dock workers several years ago). But for the most part, even relations with country with which there is a peace agreement tend to be extremely cold. So I do not think the PLO's capitulation to Israel is a function of any warming up between Israel and the Arab states, but simply an inevitable result of its nationalist outlook and its resultant fear of the masses.


As for Israel's attack on Gaza is hardly and attempt to overthrow Hamas. Hamas stayed safe, so nobily couragegously hiding behind the Palestinian working class masses who did the dying and I'm sure the IDF was well aware of this. On another point, I remember an Israeli officier himself admitting that they invaded Gaza due to the urging of the Arab states.

Since Hamas was elected, Israel had a campaign for the EU and the USA to stop all funding and diplomatic contact with its government, stole its taxes, and attacked it demanding that Hamas is replaced by a Fatah government. Later, this was replaced by a unity government. So yeah, I think it's clear that Israel does genuinely want to overthrow Hamas. Obviously they can't at the moment. I've never about that last point, but if it's true then he is lying; Arab states usually issue their token condemnations whenever Israel attacks Gaza.



Lastly it is important to see that Israel and the US don't have identical interests at all. At the time of the Cold War, Israel was more or less an extension of the American imperialist block in the region while the Arab states were that of the USSR. With the USSR gone, though, I think the situation more complicated and chaotic.

I agree here. Two attitudes common among leftists are that a) America controls Israel, and b) Israel controls America. a is obviously false as Israel gets away with a lot of things the USA doesn't approve of, b is not only borderline anti-Semitic but also completely unrealistic. The truth is that the USA is a strong imperialist, and Israel is a weaker imperialist which relies on the USA for support but also has some freedom of action. So yes, of course we consider Israel to be imperialist; one only has to look at its role in the world, economically and military, and that freedom that it has from its sponsors to see that.


OK, so you think that a Palestinian resistance against imperialism can be conducted by a force such as Hamas which was founded in the first place by imperialism and which served the interests of imperialism for a while, and which still does in providing an excuse to murder Palestinians?

I hardly think the Zionists need excuses to murder Palestinians - they've been doing it for a while now and its safe to assume they won't stop even if the rockets do. At any rate, I think the resistance certainly can be conducted by Hamas, as it has its own interests that it wishes to advance by pressuring imperialism in this way. That means, of course, that Hamas conducts the resistance in a way that we do not agree with. But that doesn't mean revolutionaries should abstain from the resistance - on the contrary, it's the best argument against that.


Don't you see a contradiction in there?

Dialectical materialism teaches us that contradictions are everywhere, and are what drives the development of all things, including history. So yes, there is a contradiction - that famous contradiction between leadership, which in this case is reactionary petit-bourgeois (perhaps even bourgeois by this point, I'm not sure), and rank and file, which consists of the masses who want to fight imperialism. The question is how to break away the latter from the former. That can only be done by participation in the resistance while politically struggling against its leadership.


Well but obviously if you think the victory of an organization serves the interests of the working class and damage those of imperialism, surely you support this organization?

No, again because it's not the victory of the organization but the victory of the resistance that is desirable to the workers. So revolutionaries would support the resistance in spite of Hamas, not because of it.


How many times can an organization betray?

Ask the workers who still support reformist parties or workers and peasants who support bourgeois populist leaders in Latin America and elsewhere. The answer is: probably as many times as it wants to, so long as there is no alternative. The only reason the PLO crashed was because Hamas became an alternative. We must build our own alternative, in Palestine and everywhere.


Why so?

Again, because what I'm trying to say in the next couple of sentences is that there is in fact a resistance outside the large organizations; it's false to just identify the resistance with Fatah or Hamas. The fact is, the resistance at times pressured the PLO to do all sorts of things that contradicted its sellout to the imperialists. Thus Zionist propaganda was able to speak hypocritically of Arafat's "ambiguity."

[Leo]

Apologies for responding to this thread late.


That seems pretty far fetched to me. Israel and the USA certainly wouldn't fight any war for the Arab states unless that happened to coincide with their interests. So while you're right that the Arab states also want to put down any Palestinian uprisings - and Egypt has done just that when some Palestinians broke out of Gaza about a year ago - the cause of that is their servility towards imperialism, not the other way around.You seem to be thinking that the Arab states are not imperialists, and have no autonomous interests and red lines which they don't want anyone to cross. Why?


Well, it's a pretty big exaggeration to say that Israel has anything near good relations with the Arab states. Sure, when push comes to shove the Israeli imperialists will bail out the Arab capitalists and vice versa: like all capitalists they know how to unite against the workers (for example, Israel was helped by neighboring Arab states in breaking a strike by its dock workers several years ago). But for the most part, even relations with country with which there is a peace agreement tend to be extremely cold. So I do not think the PLO's capitulation to Israel is a function of any warming up between Israel and the Arab states, but simply an inevitable result of its nationalist outlook and its resultant fear of the masses.Yet then the question arises: why did they capitulate at that specific point out of thin air? Why not before? Why not after?


Since Hamas was electedBy the way I want to ask a sort of unrelated question. What legitimacy do you think bourgeois elections has in general and Palestinian elections in particular?


Israel had a campaign for the EU and the USA to stop all funding and diplomatic contact with its government, stole its taxes, and attacked it demanding that Hamas is replaced by a Fatah government.Well, certainly Israel was not the only force doing that against Hamas. It could be said that the Arab states as well were doing that much, and Fatah itself was basically fighting a civil war with Hamas.


I agree here. Two attitudes common among leftists are that a) America controls Israel, and b) Israel controls America. a is obviously false as Israel gets away with a lot of things the USA doesn't approve of, b is not only borderline anti-Semitic but also completely unrealistic. The truth is that the USA is a strong imperialist, and Israel is a weaker imperialist which relies on the USA for support but also has some freedom of action. So yes, of course we consider Israel to be imperialist; one only has to look at its role in the world, economically and military, and that freedom that it has from its sponsors to see that.OK, I agree with basically everything you said here. Do you consider the Arab states, Iran and Turkey to be (weaker) imperialist powers also?


I hardly think the Zionists need excuses to murder Palestinians Well, they do need to convince some people that they are doing the right thing don't they? Are you implying that the Zionists do not use ideological and propaganda measures?


At any rate, I think the resistance certainly can be conducted by HamasWhat "resistance" is being conducted by Hamas except throwing a few rockets every now and then and engage in a few suicide bombings, making a few anti-semitic statements and hide behind the Palestinian workers when the IDF attacks?


But that doesn't mean revolutionaries should abstain from the resistance How is not abstaining from this resistance done exactly? Are you saying that revolutionaries in Palestine should throw a few bombs at the Israelis every now and then and make a few suicide attacks and then hide when the IDF arrives to butcher Palestinians?


Dialectical materialism teaches us that contradictions are everywhereYes, but I don't think it advises us to be contradictory ourselves.


So yes, there is a contradiction - that famous contradiction between leadership, which in this case is reactionary petit-bourgeois (perhaps even bourgeois by this point, I'm not sure), and rank and file, which consists of the masses who want to fight imperialism.But the rank-and-file of any movement is, by definition, made up by people from mostly proletarian origin and the intentions are usually good. I am sure the rank and file of Fatah also want the national oppression to stop and the war to not continue and not to keep dying, and I am sure a significant part of the rank-and-file of the Israeli Army want to feel safe of bombs in their homes (although without a doubt there are lots of racist elements in the IDF rank-and-file, a big number of anti-semites in the Hamas rank-and-file and a fair amount of pacifists in the ranks of Fatah). The question is not what the masses want - all bourgeois organizations try to appeal at what the masses want, there is nothing extraordinary here. The question is whether Hamas can actually fight imperialism.


No, again because it's not the victory of the organization but the victory of the resistance that is desirable to the workers. What is this resistance though if something outside the organizations?


Ask the workers who still support reformist parties or workers and peasants who support bourgeois populist leaders in Latin America and elsewhere.Yet as marxists, we know that those movements have not betrayed because they were not friends of workers' in the first place.


Again, because what I'm trying to say in the next couple of sentences is that there is in fact a resistance outside the large organizations; it's false to just identify the resistance with Fatah or Hamas.Where is this resistance though? An overwhelming majority of the Palestinian population is mobilized behind either Hamas or Fatah. There organizations are the main actors of what is called the "resistance". Minor actors can be argued to be groups like the PFLP, DFLP etc. You seem to be saying that there is a phantom resistance without organizations, where?

[gorillafuck]

If every group is either a betrayer or will be a betrayer, what is anyone supposed to do?

[Revy]

If every group is either a betrayer or will be a betrayer, what is anyone supposed to do?

Nothing. Nothing at all.:D

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Precisely. That is what the position of some comrades boils down to: posturing and nothing more.

And err, some people need to revisit the basics of Marxian political economy, so they can clear out their concepts of what "imperialism" is.

You can certainly say that authoritarian Arab states have a tendency to seek regional hegemony, but they cannot be considered "imperialist powers", basically because they lack the advanced capitalist base necessary to be imperialist in the Marxian sense. Egypt, Syria, etc, like all other states, seek to expand their hegemony over surrounding regions, but they cannot export finance capital on a scale sufficient to be considered imperialist states.

Please don't throw liberal definitions of "imperialism" at us, comrades. It's highly counter-productive, and ruins your analysis.

[Yehuda Stern]

Apologies for responding even later. Had a rough couple of days. I'll have to make a rushed response, too. Sorry for that.


You seem to be thinking that the Arab states are not imperialists, and have no autonomous interests and red lines which they don't want anyone to cross. Why?

No, the ISL does not consider the Arab states to be imperialist. Even by the classic Leninist definition of imperialism, that would not be the case. The rest though does not follow from that; each national bourgeoisie has certain national interests that it seeks to protect. The point is that these are habitually trampled upon when they clash with those of an imperialist country. The reverse obviously does not hold.


Yet then the question arises: why did they capitulate at that specific point out of thin air? Why not before? Why not after?Bourgeois nationalists are always willing to capitulate; all they need is an opportunity. The reason the PLO was able to capitulate in the early 1990s is because Israel realized the intifadah could not be defeated by brute force alone and that it needed agents in Palestine to mitigate it. When they found Arafat lacking for that task, they attacked and slandered him.


What legitimacy do you think bourgeois elections has in general and Palestinian elections in particular?That depends. They are not legitimate in relation to a proletarian uprising; but they are legitimate in relation to an imperialist attack. Imperialism wishes to defy the wishes of the oppressed masses when they clash with its interests. Marxists, in such a situation, stand with the oppressed and resist coups and other attempts to overthrow an elected government - in the same way that the Bolsheviks were willing to defend the Kerensky government from White plots but overthrew this government later when the workers turned against it.


Well, certainly Israel was not the only force doing that against Hamas. It could be said that the Arab states as well were doing that much, and Fatah itself was basically fighting a civil war with Hamas.Well, not at the same level, but you are basically right in saying that.


Well, they do need to convince some people that they are doing the right thing don't they? Are you implying that the Zionists do not use ideological and propaganda measures?Yes, but with oppression comes resistance, and this resistance will always be used for propaganda needs. Even when a Palestinian action is directed against a completely legitimate target, not unarmed common people, the Zionists use this to justify some assault or massacre.


What "resistance" is being conducted by Hamas except throwing a few rockets every now and then and engage in a few suicide bombings, making a few anti-semitic statements and hide behind the Palestinian workers when the IDF attacks?
Hide behind the workers? Hamas fighters are often killed in IDF attacks. That you consider the IDF's indiscriminate murder of civilians to be Hamas' fault speaks volumes for what your political positions lead to.


Are you saying that revolutionaries in Palestine should throw a few bombs at the Israelis every now and then and make a few suicide attacks and then hide when the IDF arrives to butcher Palestinians?I have never said this, and frankly when directed at an Israeli revolutionary I find such statements to be irresponsible red baiting.


The question is not what the masses want - all bourgeois organizations try to appeal at what the masses want, there is nothing extraordinary here. The question is whether Hamas can actually fight imperialism.No, the question is from what class the social basis of this rank and file is derived from. In the case of Fatah, it is the Palestinian bourgeoisie and collaborationist elements of the petit-bourgeoisie and middle class; in the case of Hamas, it is partly from the middle class but much of the working class and peasantry as well.


Yet as marxists, we know that those movements have not betrayed because they were not friends of workers' in the first place.
They had certain positions that they betrayed, and we have warned about this long before the betrayals occurred. The PLO has certainly betrayed its promise to fight for one Palestinian state from the Jordan to the sea. Sure, Marxists should have seen this coming; but it remains a betrayal nonetheless, just like Stalinist and social-democratic betrayals of workers revolutions.


You seem to be saying that there is a phantom resistance without organizations, where? Many Palestinians in the resistance, although usually sympathetic to some political party or another, do not belong to any of these organizations.


If every group is either a betrayer or will be a betrayer, what is anyone supposed to do?
Stop being lazy and learn how to build a proletarian organization instead of looking for an existing group to do the work for us.


Nothing. Nothing at all.:DOne should only hope to do as little as the ISL does, especially given its size. We aren't too lazy to make the effort to build an organization which has the right politics needed for the struggle against Zionism. I don't speak much about our activities because I find that the purpose it usually serves here is to deflect criticism and avoid debate: "you aren't active like me, so I don't have to respond to what you say." Well, people who reason like that, especially when they don't know a thing about a group's activities, are just lazy cowards, and do not deserve to be taken seriously.

[Leo]

Again, I apologize for not being able to respond till now, I lost a family member recently so I wasn't really able to respond to anything for a while.


No, the ISL does not consider the Arab states to be imperialist. Even by the classic Leninist definition of imperialism, that would not be the case.

What do you think is the difference between Israel and the Arab states which results in you defining the former as imperialist and the latter as not imperialist?


The point is that these are habitually trampled upon when they clash with those of an imperialist country.

I am not really sure that they are to be honest.


That depends. They are not legitimate in relation to a proletarian uprising; but they are legitimate in relation to an imperialist attack.

How can something that is not legitimate in relation to a proletarian uprising be legitimate in any other condition?

What relation does imperialist attacks have with elections? Would it be legitimate for an imperialist country to invade somewhere if the existing government there was not elected? Would you have seen any legitimacy in, lets say, Saddam Hussein if everything in his record had been exactly the same except having been elected into the office for numerous times with numerous elections?

Lastly, if we consider that communists see a proletarian uprising and social revolution on the historical agenda internationally, why should communists be concerned with the legitimacy of any government which is not legitimate in relation to a proletarian uprising?


Yes, but with oppression comes resistance, and this resistance will always be used for propaganda needs. Even when a Palestinian action is directed against a completely legitimate target, not unarmed common people, the Zionists use this to justify some assault or massacre.

Oppression does not always come with resistance though. Whether there is a nationalist "resistance" is determined by whether various nationalist factions manage to find enough international financial support, arms supply and training. Whether there is a proletarian opposition is determined by the general combativeness and consciousness of the international and regional working class.

On another point, what do you consider to be a legitimate target?


Hide behind the workers? Hamas fighters are often killed in IDF attacks.

At the bottom level, I am sure some Hamas members are killed. As the ranks go up, proportionally very few die though. And most of those who die are not Hamas members but the Palestinian masses themselves.


That you consider the IDF's indiscriminate murder of civilians to be Hamas' fault speaks volumes for what your political positions lead to.

I do not consider IDF's murder of civilians to be Hamas' fault alone. I consider Hamas to be an accomplice of the IDF.


I have never said this

It was a rhetorical question.


No, the question is from what class the social basis of this rank and file is derived from.

Can you show any contemporary movement which has any major influence which does not have a rank and file derived from toiling masses?


In the case of Fatah, it is the Palestinian bourgeoisie and collaborationist elements of the petit-bourgeoisie and middle class

You can't possibly claim that an overwhelming majority of the base of Fatah also is made up of a part of the Palestinian working class.

The elements you list, that is the bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie and the "middle class" (whatever that means) are not capable of fighting a civil war the way Fatah did themselves. They would have lost not only Gaza but West Bank in an hour had this been the case.


They had certain positions that they betrayed, and we have warned about this long before the betrayals occurred.

The bourgeoisie never delivers their promises and I don't see why you insist on calling the manipulative actions of the class enemy betrayal, but I think there is enough to debate without debating the semantics anyway.


Many Palestinians in the resistance, although usually sympathetic to some political party or another, do not belong to any of these organizations.

You yourself say that the majority of these are supporters and symphatizers of these organizations then. I have nothing to add to that.

[Yehuda Stern]

What do you think is the difference between Israel and the Arab states which results in you defining the former as imperialist and the latter as not imperialist?

One could use the classical Leninist definition, even though it has some problems: a high organic composition of capital and the dominance of financial capital. Also, one can note that Israel has the power to super-exploit the labor of workers in Jordan, for example, but foreign capitalists investing in Israel can only exploit workers at a first-world level.


How can something that is not legitimate in relation to a proletarian uprising be legitimate in any other condition?

The question is always who benefits. Trotsky was against the "red referendum" in Germany because he knew it would bring down the social-democrats but the Nazis would come to power instead. In the same way, if Fatah overthrew Hamas that would strengthen Israeli imperialism's hold on Palestine, while Hamas' victory clearly weakened it (otherwise the Israelis would not be so hysterical about it).

Due to these considerations, Marxists support an elected government against a reactionary uprising.


What relation does imperialist attacks have with elections? Would it be legitimate for an imperialist country to invade somewhere if the existing government there was not elected?

No. But the point is that what we are defending is the democratic right of the Palestinians to elect their own government, which the Israeli government was attempting to deny.


At the bottom level, I am sure some Hamas members are killed. As the ranks go up, proportionally very few die though.

That is usually how things go; how many Bolshevik leaders actually died in the civil war? Leaders are always removed from the immediate battle zone. However, Hamas leaders are habitually murdered by the Zionist army. That they are made harder to reach is, frankly, quite understandable. But what I was referring to is your stance that the large amount of civilians killed is the fault of Hamas, when it is clear that the Zionists deliberately target civilians.


I consider Hamas to be an accomplice of the IDF.

Well, that is frankly just ludicrous at the moment. Of course Hamas wants to sell out and reach some accommodation, but it certainly isn't able to.


Can you show any contemporary movement which has any major influence which does not have a rank and file derived from toiling masses?

Yes; most fascist movements in Europe had a rank and file derived from the petit bourgeoisie, peasantry etc. rather than the working class.


You yourself say that the majority of these are supporters and symphatizers of these organizations then.

Yes, but that doesn't really make your point any more valid; you claimed that there is no resistance outside the organizations you mentioned, while clearly most Palestinians are not members of any of those organizations.

[Leo]

One could use the classical Leninist definition, even though it has some problems: a high organic composition of capital and the dominance of financial capital.

Even by this definition, the major Arab states as well as Turkey and Iran are imperialist.


Also, one can note that Israel has the power to super-exploit the labor of workers in Jordan, for example, but foreign capitalists investing in Israel can only exploit workers at a first-world level.

This could be said about many Arab capital (as well as Turkish and Iranian capital) as well. An example of the "super-exploitation" of workers of foreign origin would be Dubai for example, where the conditions of Arab wage earners are massively greater than that of Southeast Asian immigrant workers.


The question is always who benefits.

Should the question not be which class benefits rather than who benefits?


In the same way, if Fatah overthrew Hamas that would strengthen Israeli imperialism's hold on Palestine while Hamas' victory clearly weakened it

Again, while Fatah is for the most part pro-Israel now, they are a force aligned with the Arab states, not Israel, and if Fatah overthrew Hamas it would strengthen the Arab states hold on Gaza and weaken that of Iran.


(otherwise the Israelis would not be so hysterical about it).

This is a bit like saying the US would not be so hysterical about Iraq if they didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

I get the impression that you think there has to be a rational reason for imperialism to actually go to war and massacre people.


Due to these considerations, Marxists support an elected government against a reactionary uprising.

So you think that Marxists support one enemy of the working class against another if the faction supported has proven it's democratic legitimacy against the other to the Marxists?

I'm sorry but this is the sort of bourgeois-legalist "Marxism" which all the revolutionary internationalists like Lenin, Luxemburg, Liebknecht and Trotsky all condemned during WW1.


That is usually how things go

In bourgeois armies, that is.


how many Bolshevik leaders actually died in the civil war?

Quite a lot, including three members of the Central Committee, most of which in fact was not personally involved with the Civil War and resided in Moscow and Petrograd.


However, Hamas leaders are habitually murdered by the Zionist army.

Not that habitually at all compared to the murder of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, or even the murder of Palestinian civilians in the hands of Hamas or Fatah.


Well, that is frankly just ludicrous at the moment. Of course Hamas wants to sell out and reach some accommodation, but it certainly isn't able to.

IDF attacking Palestine and murdering civillians serves the interests of not only the IDF but also that of Hamas. IDF wants Hamas to bomb Israeli civilians since it creates a legitimate excuse for invasion and butchery of Palestinians wheras Hamas wants the IDF to invade and butcher Palestinians because it increases their legitimacy in internal politics and position as the main organization of the Palesitinian "resistance". It is a win-win situation for the IDF and Hamas, and the Palestinian working class is the one who has to do the dying bit. Thus Hamas is an accomplice of the IDF.


Yes; most fascist movements in Europe had a rank and file derived from the petit bourgeoisie, peasantry etc. rather than the working class.

Initially, maybe, that is when they were tiny. Yet, organizations like the SA for example which was as rank-and-file fachist as it could get was almost entirely made up workers and the unemployed. No movement which has not managed to manipulate the working class into supporting them has any chance in the major level of bourgeois politics in any country.


Yes, but that doesn't really make your point any more valid; you claimed that there is no resistance outside the organizations you mentioned, while clearly most Palestinians are not members of any of those organizations.

Of course most Palestinians are not members of any of those organizations. On the other hand, what is called the resistance is almost exclusively limited to those organizations and their supporters and symphatizers. In other words there is practically no resistance outside the control and activities of these organizations.

[blake 3:17]

It`s silly to conflate the PFLP and the PLO.