Soviet Support for the Partition of Palestine, 1947

[Random Precision]

In 1947, the USSR about-faced from its insistence that Palestine not be partitioned. USSR representative to the Security Council Andrei Gromyko stated the following:


When the question of the future of Palestine was under discussion at the special session of the General Assembly the Government of the USSR pointed to the two most acceptable solutions of this question. The first was the creation of a single democratic Arab-Jewish State in which Arabs and Jews would enjoy equal rights. In case that solution were to prove unworkable because of Arab and Jewish insistence that, in view of the deterioration in Arab-Jewish relations, they would be unable to live together, the Government of the USSR through its delegation at the Assembly, pointed to the second solution, which was to partition Palestine into two free, independent and democratic States— an Arab and a Jewish one.

As we know the partition plan gave 55% of the country to a Jewish minority. The area alloted to the Jewish state contained very many Arabs who would have to leave for the area alloted to the Arab state. Also the Jewish area contained all the major ports, all the most economically advantageous parts of Palestine. And of course the partition agreement allowed the war in 1948, during which Palestinian Arabs were expelled from a full 78% of Palestinian territory.

Not only this but the USSR's endorsement of partition had disastrous consequences for the struggle in the Middle East. Egyptian and Palestinian Communists leafleted Arab troops heading for Palestine, calling on them to abandon the war that would only serve the best interests of British imperialism. In Iraq, the Anti-Zionist League led by Jewish cadres of the Iraqi CP was completely discredited and later disbanded, one of the factors which allowed the Zionist underground in Iraq to succeed in its efforts to move the Jews of that country to Israel. A full 90% of Iraqi Jews left for Israel by July 1951.

Basically I am wondering what supporters of the USSR during this time think of the decision which opened the way for the expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs from their homeland and that in many ways discredited socialism in the Middle East.

[Yehuda Stern]

In the Israeli context, this act is what finalized the evolution of the Israeli / Palestinian CP from a revolutionary proletarian party to a reformist, pro-Zionist party which is an important pillar of the Zionist regime. The CP supplied weapons to the Zionists through Czechoslovakia, and the sons and daughters of those who did so are still in the leadership of the CP today. It is doubtful that the Zionists could have come to power without the criminal assistance of the Stalinists.

[Vargha Poralli]

Soviet Policy in Middle east was mainly based on one factor - British Strength and weakness. Even though emerged in the winning side of the war British position was severely weakened by 1947 - The Indian Subcontinent which was the crown jewel of the British empire was in verge of Independence from their imperialist possession and British empire didn't have both resources and will to establish dominance in the Middle east especially in the British Mandate of Palestine. Soviet policy was based on only one factor which was keeping American influence at bay in Middle east. They assumed that supporting the partition of Palestine the resultant Zionist state could be brought under their sphere of influence by gratitude of support or by diplomatic pressure. Given that Britain was uncooperative with America in middle east issue and British support for the Arabian cause as opposed to American and Soviet plans added ammunition to the Soviet decision ultimately.

But the Zionist understood that even though emerging in the winning side in the WW2 USSR was in the same state as the Britain as opposed to US whose industrial capacity was not damaged as much as Europe. So when it was proved that Israel was more favourabe to US than to USSR did the Soviet policy took a U turn.

Which proves that by 1940 even under Stalin Soviet bureaucracy had abandoned revolutionary goals of the October revolution in favour of its own existence and privileges. This is just the continuation of the Popular Front strategy, dissolution of Comintern etc.

The difficulty for Stalinists in this issue is they just can't blame Khrushchev and get over with it.

[The Deepest Red]

The difficulty for Stalinists in this issue is they just can't blame Khrushchev and get over with it.

That's because the so-called "anti-revisionists" are in fact the supreme revisionists. Anything that contradicts their portrayal of Stalin et al as the defenders of 'socialism' and the champions of all the world's oppressed peoples is airbrushed out of their official canon. For instance; the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), I think perhaps the most nauseatingly anti-worker/anti-socialist organisation I've encountered on the 'left', denies the USSR supported the Zionist project in Palestine and that they were simply trying to usurp British and US imperialist designs on the region, but not for the bureaucracy's own self-interest of course. :rolleyes:

[The Deepest Red]

Basically I am wondering what supporters of the USSR during this time think of the decision which opened the way for the expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs from their homeland and that in many ways discredited socialism in the Middle East.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8008/tumbleweed004.jpg

[the last donut of the night]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8008/tumbleweed004.jpg

Wow.

Where would we be without your thoughtful, insightful, and overall masterfully written answers?

Please do us all a favor and not be stupid. Some of us, including me, want to learn.

[Intelligitimate]

The sheer dishonesty in the portrayal of these events is hysterical. The USSR was fighting against Western colonialism, as Palestine was officially a colony under the British Mandate since 1920. That they made a tactical error in supporting Zionist forces, thinking the Left-wing Zionists would make a socialist ally in the region says absolutely nothing about "abandoned revolutionary goals." Fighting colonialism is about as revolutionary as it gets.

Stalin didn't have a crystal ball, and the anarcho-Trot trash that would complain about supporting Israel are the same ones who call Stalin anti-Semitic for denouncing Israel and Zionism even more fiercely after they made an alliance with Western imperialism.

[Ismail]

As Intelligitimate said, it was basically seen as anti-colonialism. Most/All Arab states at the time were pro-US/UK, so the desire to influence Israel to be pro-Soviet was quite strong, not to mention that Jewish Socialism was far more notable at the time than Arab Socialism, plus seemingly more radical. Lenin wanted the British Labour Party in the Comintern because of his belief that it was possible to turn it leftward (due to its unique trade union structure, even though that later turned out to be wrong), same with Labour Zionism as a way to move Jews towards the left in Israel.


The difficulty for Stalinists in this issue is they just can't blame Khrushchev and get over with it.You'd probably praise Khrushchev for aligning most of the Arab states with the Soviets and deduce that Khrushchev > Stalin as a result.

[ls]

Lenin wanted the British Labour Party in the Comintern because of his belief that it was possible to turn it leftward (due to its unique trade union structure, even though that later turned out to be wrong), same with Labour Zionism as a way to move Jews towards the left in Israel.

And both tactics were completely wrong, they would be at any time. It doesn't make it right just because Lenin was mistaken too. Socialists are supposed to learn from mistakes, not make them repeatedly.

[Vargha Poralli]

The USSR was fighting against Western colonialism, as Palestine was officially a colony under the British Mandate since 1920.


As Intelligitimate said, it was basically seen as anti-colonialism.Most/All Arab states at the time were pro-US/UK

he we have to wonder why Comintern and its CPI worked actively to scabbed (http://www.anti-caste.org/workers-hammer-on-indian-independence.html) on the anti colonial struggle in India during 1942. :rolleyes:


You'd probably praise Khrushchev for aligning most of the Arab states with the Soviets and deduce that Khrushchev > Stalin as a result.

:rolleyes:

Yeah given Arab states are so enthusiastic about freedom to Palestinian struggle.

I don't give a a fuck about whether Khrushchev supported Arab states or Stalin supported it. In my view USSR under Stalin and After Stalin was basically the same. The USSR's foreign policies aim is to secured the privileged existence of bureaucracy at the cost of working class of all countries.

[Ismail]

he we have to wonder why Comintern and its CPI worked actively to scabbed (http://www.anti-caste.org/workers-hammer-on-indian-independence.html) on the anti colonial struggle in India during 1942. :rolleyes:World War II. In any case, communism dominated British fears post-war concerning India, as Suniti Kumar Ghosh noted in his 1985 article "On the Transfer of Power in India." He did, of course, also note that:

As part of their onslaught, the Congress launched a vicious political campaign against the Communists in order to isolate them politically. When the Congress leaders were themselves playing the imperialist game, they accused the Communists, of having co-operated with the government during the war after the Nazi attack upon the Soviet Union!

The tragic fact is that when India stood at the crossroads of history, the Communist Party would give only hesitant and feeble leadership to the people. It failed miserably to fulfill the task that history had given it. Instead of clarifying the minds of workers and peasants about the true character of the Congress and League leaders, it only befogged them; instead of freeing the masses from the influence of the comprador bourgeoisie, it only strengthened it.I would say that the Comintern was too interventionist. This conclusion was also reached by people like Mao and Hoxha, and its dissolution in 1943 was a positive event. Until then, of course, it was only inevitable that it represent what the CPSU wanted.

[Random Precision]

The USSR was fighting against Western colonialism, as Palestine was officially a colony under the British Mandate since 1920.

So the way to fight Western colonialism is, er, to support the establishment of a predominantly European colony in the Middle East? Have I got that right?


That they made a tactical error in supporting Zionist forces, thinking the Left-wing Zionists would make a socialist ally in the region

If Stalin or whoever thought that Labor Zionism could be a "socialist ally in the region", he lacked any fucking clue about its politics or its history for the forty years before 1948.

[Vargha Poralli]

I would say that the Comintern was too interventionist. This conclusion was also reached by people like Mao and Hoxha, and its dissolution in 1943 was a positive event.

I am not much familiar with the latter but the former is not so different from it. He effectively strangled the ML movements in India and Bangladesh by directing them to support Pakistan during the Bangladesh liberation war. It was also driven by vested interests of China in that region.


Until then, of course, it was only inevitable that it represent what the CPSU wanted.

You know that it was Stalin in control of it right ?

[Intelligitimate]

So the way to fight Western colonialism is, er, to support the establishment of a predominantly European colony in the Middle East?It was to support a people who would fight the pro-British forces for independence.


If Stalin or whoever thought that Labor Zionism could be a "socialist ally in the region", he lacked any fucking clue about its politics or its history for the forty years before 1948.You're the one that lacks any clue about anything, and basically spews anti-communist shit regardless if it makes any sense, hence the Cliffite cult you belong to.

[Ismail]

So the way to fight Western colonialism is, er, to support the establishment of a predominantly European colony in the Middle East? Have I got that right?I don't see where the USSR advocated an Israeli state that would oppress Palestinians. Gromyko said that the USSR would support a united state (in which both Jews and Palestinians would exist) and, if that was impossible for the time being, two separate states (which was a basic cop-out thing to say anyway).


He effectively strangled the ML movements in India and Bangladesh by directing them to support Pakistan during the Bangladesh liberation war. It was also driven by vested interests of China in that region.Correct, and Hoxha condemned him for that. Hoxha noted as early as 1978 that China's policy was to become a superpower:


In these conditions, in order to become a superpower, China will have to go through two main phases: first, it must seek credits and investments from US imperialism and the other developed capitalist countries, purchase new technology in order to exploit its local wealth, a great part of which will go as dividends for the creditors. Second, it will invest the surplus value extracted at the expense of the Chinese people in states of various continents, just as the US imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists are doing today.

China's efforts to become a superpower are based, in the first place, on its choice of allies and the creation of alliances. Two superpowers exist in the world today, US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. The Chinese leaders worked out that they must rely on US imperialism, on which they have pinned great hopes of getting assistance in the fields of the economy, finance, technology and organization, as well as in the military field. In fact, the economic-military potential of the United States of America is greater than that of Soviet social-imperialism. This the Chinese revisionists know well, though they say that America is declining. On the course which they are following, they cannot rely on a weak partner, from which they cannot gain much. Precisely because it is powerful, they have chosen the United States of America to be their ally.

You know that it was Stalin in control of it right?Yes, and? It was also under the control of Lenin when Lenin was alive. The attempts of the Workers' Opposition to appeal to the Comintern in 1922, for example, had no chance of succeeding. The Comintern was an almost inherently Soviet-based organization and with that was led by the CPSU.

[Random Precision]

It was to support a people who would fight the pro-British forces for independence.

Actually the only ones fighting "pro-British forces" were the Revisionists, such as the Irgun and the Stern Gang. They did stuff like shoot British soldiers and blow up the King David hotel. They were also viciously right-wing and openly called for a genocide of native Palestinians. Just the kind of freedom fighters the USSR wanted to ally with, hm?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Vargha Poralli]

duplicate

[Vargha Poralli]

Yes, and? It was also under the control of Lenin when Lenin was alive.The attempts of the Workers' Opposition to appeal to the Comintern in 1922, for example, had no chance of succeeding. The Comintern was an almost inherently Soviet-based organization and with that was led by the CPSU.

But using Comintern as an extension of Soviet foreign policy started in 1930s well after the Bureaucracy had solidifed its position under Stalin and mjority of the Old Bolsheviks have marginalised. Everything followed that - betrayals starting from Germany,Spain and Colonial struggles and in post independence.


Where is the Marxist-Leninist movement strangled in India? Last time I checked, it was going great.

When you see it safly from a distance it is obviously "doing great".

[The Deepest Red]

It was to support a people who would fight the pro-British forces for independence.

You're the one that lacks any clue about anything, and basically spews anti-communist shit regardless if it makes any sense, hence the Cliffite cult you belong to.

And you're the Stalinist hack who believes an expansionist war fought by a colonialist minority against the indigenous population of Palestine, at one point actively supported by the Nazi regime, was a war "for independence" from British imperialism. If you accept that it was the Moscow government acting in its own self-interest and that that's justifiable then fair enough, just don't pretend you're a socialist or anything.

[The Deepest Red]

Its time to take the bag off your heads. Trotskyism has ever been an ineffective petit-bourgois social-imperialist movement and it shall remain so until the personality cult of Trotsky is gotten rid of and a materialist perspective is taken on things.

In what way is Trotskyism "petit-bourgeois" and "social-imperialist"? :confused:

[Yehuda Stern]

Does it really matter in what way the Stalinists justified their support for Zionism? To this day I hear leftists justify their support of Israel by claiming that Israel or was socialist or democratic in some way that a Palestinian state could never be. Of course the Stalinists used anti-imperialist rheotric to justify what they did; it doesn't change at all the fact that it was a crime against the Palestinian people.

Zionism's character was clear from the get go: it massacred Palestinians, it attacked Jews who bought Arab goods, it set as its goal the conquest of labor and the land from Arab workers and fellahin. Stalin didn't make a mistake; he simply lied.

What's really criminal is that people still try to justify because supposedly the Arab states were more hostile to socialism. It certainly didn't help the Arab masses' attitudes that the USSR was supporting the Zionists in Palestine, now did it? And what a stupid attitude to take! Perhaps communists today should support the British army against the Iraqi resistance, because Britain is ruled by a labor party while the resistance is led by Islamists.

Oh, and Stalin isn't denounced as an anti-Semite for denouncing Israel. He is denounced as an anti-Semite because in his final years because of the Prague Trials, the Doctors Plot, and the Night of Murdered Poets. Stalinists say these weren't anti-Semitic acts; Neo-Nazis also say the holocaust never happened.

[cska]

Trotsky FTW!

[Random Precision]

Trotsky FTW!

THis has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Please don't post unless you have something concrete to say about the topic.

Also, trashed posts about the Naxalites,

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In the Israeli context, this act is what finalized the evolution of the Israeli / Palestinian CP from a revolutionary proletarian party to a reformist, pro-Zionist party which is an important pillar of the Zionist regime. The CP supplied weapons to the Zionists through Czechoslovakia, and the sons and daughters of those who did so are still in the leadership of the CP today. It is doubtful that the Zionists could have come to power without the criminal assistance of the Stalinists.

That quote in your signature is unabashedly racist. Undoubtably.

I take offence to it, as somebody who was born into a jewish family. Not that I am some sort of religious or Zionist zealot, far from it, I adopt the natural Socialist position of atheism and anti-zionism. However, you should understand that even the non-religious/non-zionist jew is still a jew.

[ls]

However, you should understand that even the non-religious/non-zionist jew is still a jew.

And you care why..?

[Yehuda Stern]

DemSoc: first of all, how does that have anything to do with this thread? Second, my point exactly is that the quote is racist, and I use it to show all sorts of "leftists" who claim left Zionism was progressive what it's really worth. You just seriously misunderstood my intentions - and I don't understand why, as the quotation marks around "Marxist" should show that I do not approve of Hashomer HaTzair.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

DemSoc: first of all, how does that have anything to do with this thread? Second, my point exactly is that the quote is racist, and I use it to show all sorts of "leftists" who claim left Zionism was progressive what it's really worth. You just seriously misunderstood my intentions - and I don't understand why, as the quotation marks around "Marxist" should show that I do not approve of Hashomer HaTzair.

lol. Apologies. That post was written in the late hours. Sloppiness on my part.

No, it had little to do with the thread. Apologies again comrade.

[Coggeh]

I always wondered the question of did socialists support the creation of a state for Jews. I would suspect they wouldn't on the basis of an exclusive religious sectarian nation . But in the times of the 40's with huge radicalism along the zionist movement, anti imperialist against Britain and also their leftist approach in ideology among the grass roots which resulted in the creation of the Kibbutz which was praised as the reason why Israel survived its first troublesome years as a state.

I can see how some leftists would have supported the zionist movement, the same way some support the movement of Hamas/PFLP/DFLP etc .So the fact that the Soviet Union which had a huge jewish population, fresh out of the war against the nazi's and in full knowledge of the disgusting crimes against humanity which were done to both jews and communists pretty much exclusively by nazism led to a poor theoretic analysis of the situation in Palestine and thus supported a partition of Palestine to accommodate a jewish state. I have to agree with Yehuda though that despite all the maybe pros of the zionist movement any support at this time or at the time for the creation of Israel would have simply been wrong.Its just understandable where that support came from.

The only thing it confirms really is the Soviet unions poor international policy of the time on a national , pedantic and pragmatic basis rather than on a class basis.

[Yehuda Stern]

Coggeh: Lenin and Trotsky actually were willing to try and create a state for Jews in the USSR, which materialized eventually in a distorted form in Birobijan. However, the "radicalism" you speak of within Zionism is something that many pro-Zionists raise but none can prove. In fact, it has been shown in this thread and many others that progressive Zionists are figments of the pro-Zionist leftists' imagination. Then you compare support from an imperialist state for a colonialist settler movement to support from confused or reformist leftists for nationalist / Islamist national liberation movements.

I understand you're just trying to be objective and try to understand it from others' point of view, and that is admirable, but there's no avoiding the fact that those who supported Zionism at the time did so due to imperialist pressures and motives, and not because of any sympathy - for the most part - for the supposed radicalism of some Zionist groups or for the horrors wrought upon the Jews.