Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Exchange on Marxism and Palestine

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztecfreenet.org
    This is rather a long post, but it delves into some fascinating historical issues regarding the origin of Soviet support for the Zionist entity in 1947 and the
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 28, 2003
      This is rather a long post, but it delves into some fascinating historical
      issues regarding the origin of Soviet support for the Zionist entity in
      1947 and the extent of Zionist infiltration of the Communist Party of the
      Soviet Union. The exchange was originally posted on the Arab Nationalist
      List of Yahoogroups.

      --Kevin Walsh

      ================= Begin forwarded message =================

      Dear Kevin,

      On the Arab Nationalist list there's a guy named Ziad
      who is some sort of Marxist. His posts are sometimes
      too dogmatic for my taste, but at least he shares our
      "interest" in that ideology.

      Today he posted a story on the 1947 Partition vote and
      the Soviet role. I found the article quite
      superficial, actually.

      In case you might find it interesting here are our
      exchanges. I know it gets long but just in case
      you're interested. Actually Ziad supplies some
      interesting references, even though I don't think they
      are sufficient for analysing the problem, they do help
      to get a feel for it.

      Comradely,

      Eric
      ---------------------------------
      FIRST, ZIAD'S INITIAL POST:

      Recognition of "israel"
      by Ziad Shaker elJishi
      April 23 2003

      The Palestinian National Charter in July 1-17, 1968
      stated:

      Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing
      themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject
      all solutions which are substitutes for the total
      liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals
      aiming at the
      liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its
      internationalization.

      The Palestinian National charter asserted three main
      principles which still govern the Palestinian
      revolutionary struggle for liberation of Palestine and
      those are:

      1.That Palestine belongs to the Arab people
      2.That the land of Palestine is an integral part of
      the Arab Homeland
      3.That only armed resistance can accomplish the
      liberation of Palestine.
      The Palestinian National Charter further explained:

      Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for
      Palestine, and
      everything that has been based upon them, are deemed
      null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties
      of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts
      of history and the true conception of what constitutes
      statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an
      independent nationality.Nor do Jews constitute a
      single nation with an identity of its own; they
      are citizens of the states to which they belong.

      The recognition of "israel" by the Soviet Union in
      1947 has been a source of worry for many Marxists as
      it represents a deviation from the historical
      Marxist-Leninest line that opposed Zionism as a
      fascist movement and opposed the creation of a
      "Jewish" nationality and therefrom a state. This
      confusion about the Soviet Union's position via the
      "israel" has produced divisions amongst communist
      ranks and at worst have bankrupted whole communist
      organizations especially Arab ones that blindly
      trodden this gravely mistaken line.

      The truth behind the Soviet Union's recognition of
      "israel" may be explained in the historical collapse
      of the Soviet Union itself. This is how important this
      question of recognition of "israel" can be and this is
      how important it still is.

      Indeed it is our litmus test today to separating the
      revolutionary from the opportunist, the principled
      from the revisionist, the correct communist
      Marxist-Leninest line from the deviating
      Marxist-Leninest line.
      Simply put, anyone who claims to be a communist and
      Marxist-Leninest and recognizes "israel" is simply not
      a communist nor a Marxist-Leninest.

      A document(1) that was forwarded to me of recent
      exposes the revisionist line that was responsible for
      the recognition of "israel". It blames the Soviet
      Union delegate to the UN Andrey Gromyko for the Soviet
      Union grave mistake of recognizing "israel" in 1947.
      Gromyko is exposed in the paper as a Soviet
      revisionist in the line of revisionists led by
      Khruchev in the CPSU ranks that led eventually the
      Soviet Union to doom.

      As the paper points the revisionist line began with
      the take over of the Comintern by the Zioniviev
      faction, then the Bukharin faction, and then by that
      of Dimitrov-Kuussinen-Manuilsky faction.

      At the early stages and even before Stalin took over
      the CPSU leadership in 1925 the correct
      Marxist-Leninest line was promoted within the
      Comintern while Lenin still attended, in an article
      (11f) that was passed at the Second Congress of
      Comintern that condemned the attempts of foreign
      imperialism to establish a divisive "Jewish" state of
      "israel" in Arab Palestine; article 11f said:

      "It is essential constantly to expose and to explain
      to the widest masses of the working people everywhere,
      and particularly in the backward countries, the
      deception practiced by the imperialist powers with the
      help of the privileged classes in the oppressed
      countries in creating ostensibly politically
      independent States which are in reality completely
      dependent on them economically, financially, and
      militarily. A glaring example of the deception
      practiced on the working classes of an oppressed
      nation by the combined efforts of Entente imperialism
      and the bourgeoisie of that same nations is offered by
      the Zionists' venture (And by Zionism as a whole,
      which under the pretense of creating a Jewish state in
      Palestine in fact surrenders the Arab working people
      of Palestine, where the Jewish workers form only a
      small minority to exploitation by England). In present
      international circumstances there is no salvation for
      dependent and weak nations except as an alliance of
      Soviet republics".

      Thus here is the correct Marxist-Leninest line of the
      Second Congress of the Comintern that was attended by
      Lenin. Any deviation from this analysis and from this
      line is a deviation from the Marxist-Leninest line.
      First the only salvation of the Jewish working class
      is not in creating an exclusionary homeland of their
      own but assimilation in their countries of residence.
      It is in the building of an alliance of Soviet
      republics (for example) as part of the Arab homeland
      and involvement in the class struggle there.

      That the creation of the state of "israel" can never
      be removed from an understanding of its raison d'etre
      and that is as an imperialist project put in the
      service of imperialism. That the settlers in "israel"
      today are colonialists and that there was no "israeli"
      working class at the time as admitted by the
      Comintern, and that the purpose of this settler
      society is to surrender the rights of the majority of
      Arab working classes to the interests of
      imperialism(this also still holds today in so-called
      "israel").

      So why then did the revisionists in the Soviet Union
      deviate from this, why did they, led by Andrey
      Gromyko, recognize "israel" in 1947?

      Even the Palestine Communist Party was against the
      division of Palestine into a state for Jewish
      immigrants and and one for the local indigenous
      Palestinian Arab population. At this time however,
      Gromyko voted to recognize "israel" at the first
      session of the UN in San Francisco.

      Gromyko even pushed a hesitant Truman to recognize
      "israel" while Truman had reservations about
      alienating the Arab bourgeoisie rulers by recognizing
      the Jewish state.

      On the 9th o October 1947 Truman gave his approval for
      recognition of the state of "israel" and through a
      motion by the UN on the 29th of November by a vote of
      33 to 13, "israel" came into being at a meeting of the
      National Council at 4pm on Friday May 14 1948.
      The first country to recognize "israel" was the USA
      and within a few days the Soviet Union, Poland,
      Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Uruguay, and other
      countries.

      Actor-director Shlomo Mikhoels and member of the
      Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee described Gromyko:
      "is that good Gentile who shows us the way to the Land
      of "israel"."

      The paper i obtained suggests that the Soviet Union
      aware of a large population problem in Jewish refugees
      after the war had taken a principled Marxist-Leninest
      line that was then subverted.
      The historical beginnings to the recognition of
      "israel" by the Soviet Union began when the Soviet
      Union on the 10 of February 1945 received letters from
      the Rome-based Jewish Committee of the International
      Union of Emigrants and Refugees lobbying for the
      creation of a Jewish state inside of Germany.

      Later proposals to the Soviet Union were in a request
      for creating a Jewish republic inside the USSR.
      There was early resistance to the Gromyko line in the
      form of a memo signed on 27 of July 1945 by M.M.
      Litvinov that called for taking the mandate area of
      Palestine away from the British citing that the
      British as well as the US can not be objective being
      subject to the influences of both the Arab states and
      world Jewry.

      US positions at the time influenced by US Jewry forced
      both the Republican and Democratic parties to support
      unrestricted immigration of Jews to Palestine and
      unrestricted rights to own land in Palestine.
      The USSR, the memo requested should take temporary
      trusteeship to Palestine until a more radical solution
      is found. That in the case the USSR request was
      rejected a joint USSR, USA, and Britain collective
      trusteeship should be requested.

      This trusteeship the memo called for, should not abide
      by the Balfour Declaration nor by an promises Britain
      has earlier given as mandatory power; so that the new
      trusteeship should find a solution in fairness to the
      Palestine problem.

      This line held true in the Soviet Union until May
      1946.
      The imperialists on the other hand had established the
      Anglo-American Committee that was setup to investigate
      the situation in Palestine. The Soviet position was to
      take a correct Marxist-Leninest line using the UN to
      expose the aspirations of the imperialists to limit
      "interferences" of other countries in settling the
      issue.

      It was then correctly stated by the Soviet Union that
      anti-racism and anti-Semitism was a reflection of
      larger forces and could not be dealt with simply by
      creating a state-that anyway could not house every one
      subject to racism.

      The Soviet Union decided to ask the Arabs to raise
      these issues in the UN. The USSR position became to
      reject the Anglo-American Committee's position as
      "incompetent" and to insist on abrogation of the
      British mandate in Palestine.

      The USSR insisted that the Jewish question in Europe
      can not be solved through Jewish immigration to
      Palestine. That the British mandate represented a
      threat to security in the region and that British
      troops must be withdrawn and a more radical solution
      found.

      That in the meanwhile Palestine is to be placed under
      UN trusteeship until a sovereign and democratic
      Palestine can be founded. That this proposal should be
      presented to the UN by the Arab state representatives
      themselves.

      This official Soviet position was formulated in a memo
      entitled "The Palestine Question", based on the
      results of the Litvinov Committee, compiled by the
      Middle East Department of the USSR Foreign Ministry,
      and sent on May 15 1946 to V.G. Dekanozov Deputy
      People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs.

      In conclusion as the Palestinian National Charter
      worked to establish a Democratic Secular state in
      Palestine and that armed struggle was the way towards
      liberation of Palestine, that Palestine belongs to the
      Arab people; as article 11f of the Second Congress of
      the Comintern correctly stated that the Zionist state
      is an imperialist project against the interests of the
      Arab working people.

      That the solution to the Jewish question is not in
      creating an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine.
      We must speak along (and raise) this correct and
      principled Marxist-Leninest line today, to the working
      classes of people all over the world we must be more
      clear and honest:
      A Socialist Arab state in Palestine through armed
      struggle.


      1.ALLIANCE MARXIST-LENINIST Number 30, Oct 1998.
      http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/All30table.htm.
      Note this website is difficult to access due perhaps
      to its sabotage.

      -----------------------------------

      NOW MY INITIAL REPLY:

      Fraternal greetings!
      Comradely greetings!

      The line taken by the Palestine National Charter on
      the nature of the Jews, the Arab character of
      Palestine and the nature of Zionism should indeed be
      taken as a key reference or position statement, and
      the basic political thrust of this this article is
      correct, that Marxists and Marxism must not legitimise
      or accept the Zionist entity in Palestine.

      Much of the argument here, however, seems to be based
      on an article that is now inaccessible, which means
      that we cannot go back and access that article and
      fully assess the sources it makes use of.

      Therefore we must assess this article by
      brother/comrade Ziad, aware that he has made use of
      the other piece and that no doubt he is not in any
      sense limiting his views to those expressed in the
      older piece he refers to.

      While offering some potentially useful information on
      the background to the Soviet votes for the creation of
      "Israel" in the United Nations, a great mass of other
      information has not been dealt with and as a result
      this article on its own is insufficient insofar as it
      deals with the historical background to the Soviet and
      Communist relationship with the Zionists and "Israel."

      The article says, for example:

      A document(1) that was forwarded to me of recent
      > exposes the revisionist line that was responsible
      > for the recognition of "israel". It blames the
      > Soviet Union delegate to the UN Andrey Gromyko for
      > the Soviet Union grave mistake of recognizing
      > "israel" in 1947. Gromyko is exposed in the paper as
      > a Soviet revisionist in the line of revisionists led
      > by Khruchev in the CPSU ranks that led eventually
      > the Soviet Union to doom. As the paper points the
      > revisionist line began with the take over of the
      > Comintern by the Zioniviev faction, then the
      > Bukharin faction, and then by that of
      > Dimitrov-Kuussinen-Manuilsky faction. At the early
      > stages and even before Stalin took over the CPSU
      > leadership in 1925 the correct Marxist-Leninest line
      > was promoted within the Comintern while Lenin still
      > attended, in an article (11f) that was passed at the
      > Second Congress of Comintern that condemned the
      > attempts of foreign imperialism to establish a
      > divisive "Jewish" state of "israel" in Arab
      > Palestine;

      We cannot personalise the Soviet vote for partition by
      putting it down to the views of Andrey Gromyko, who at
      the time was not part of the top Soviet leadership and
      who certainly could not vote in the United Nations
      according to his own personal whim.

      Litvinov, who was himself of Jewish origin, and a
      darling of the Zionist left in the United States
      during World War II, is an unlikely candidate for some
      sort of anti-Zionist hero that this article would
      suggest. Litvinov was very much out of official favor
      in Moscow after he was replaced as Foreign Minister by
      Molotov. Litvinov was popular with liberals in the
      west for his urging of a united front with the western
      governments against Hitler. According to Molotov,
      Litvinov was not just friendly to the west, but was
      manipulated by western secret services. He was sent
      into permanent retirement before World War II. So it
      is unlikely that he would have been a power of much
      influence in the Soviet leadership thereafter. But
      again the issue was probably multifaceted and complex
      and it would be useful to find that letter and analyse
      it more closely.

      Soviet policy was the product of much bigger forces
      than individuals' whims.

      Soviet policy on Zionism was fairly consistent,
      actually, until about 1938. So those other remarks
      about Zinoviev, Bukharin, Dimitrov, Kuusinen,
      Manuilsky are really irrelevant and misleading. The
      first two, Zinoviev and Bukharin were of Jewish origin
      and might personally have had a blind spot or soft
      spot for Zionists more than others, and who knows,
      perhaps they contributed something behind the scenes,
      but the fact remains that both of them had been
      arrested and executed before the change in Soviet
      policy took place -- after 1937.

      As to the leaders of the Comintern after Bukharin --
      namely Dimitrov, Kuusinen, Manuilsky -- they presided
      over that organization in the early and mid-1930s when
      it was probably the most outspoken in favour of Arab
      causes and against Zionism in the whole of the history
      of that organization.

      Anyone interested can read some important original
      Comintern documents from this period at:

      http://www.freearabvoice.org/reference/Bakdash.htm

      and

      http://www.freearabvoice.org/reference/cominternYusufNazim.htm

      and

      http://www.freearabvoice.org/reference/cominternYusufKhattarAlHilw.htm

      The changes whereby the USSR moved in effect to
      support the Zionist enterprise, which came in as World
      War II approached, were not the result of their
      personal perspectives of Dimitrov or others (who took
      over the Comintern in the first half of the 1930s),
      but of political changes in the world and the Soviet
      leadership's reaction to them on the level of tactics
      and strategy.

      A study of the period seems to suggest that the switch
      in Soviet policy was due to two factors:

      1. The activity of crypto-Zionists within the ranks of
      the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the world
      Communist Movement,

      and

      2. The effort by Soviet leaders, most probably by
      Stalin himself, to make use of international Jewery as
      a pressure group to compell the British and US
      governments, first to back the USSR in a war with
      Germany, and, after the war, to pressure those same
      regimes into less bellicose and hostile policies to
      the USSR. Stalin realised that this policy had
      largely failed probably as early as the second half of
      1948, whereupon a heavy crackdown on Zionist and
      Jewish nationalist elements in the USSR began.

      There is documentation regarding the role of Zionists
      within the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party and the
      international Communist movement in Soviet political
      literature of the 1930s. A particularly interesting
      and revealing article by someone named S. Bit-Yukhan
      appeared in a double-issue of the periodical
      Revolliutsionnyi Vostok ("The Revolutionary East")No
      5-6, volume 10, of 1936. Entitled (in Russian)
      "Zionist ideology under the cover of a 'critique of
      Zionism'" it reviewed a book by S. Hecht, also
      published in the USSR, which purported to be a leftist
      critique of Zionism, but was, in fact, a defence of
      many of its key positions and prejudices. Bit-Yukhan
      referred (p. 201) to the:

      "recently exposed apologists of English imperialism
      and Zionism -- Avigdor, Auerbuch-Abu Ziam, and Berger
      -- who in their time wrote in the Soviet press about
      Palestine. Every revolutionary _expression of the
      oppressed Arab masses they regarded as a 'pogrom.'
      This is how those agents of imperialism evaluated the
      national liberation struggle of the Arab people in the
      years 1920, 1923, 1929, 1933."

      Those names are extremely significant because they are
      virtually the founders of the Communist movement
      amongst the Jews in Palestine and were considered in
      the early years of the Comintern to have such
      "expertise" in that part of the world that they were
      delegated to supervise also the formative work of
      Communists in Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt as well as in
      Palestine. In the period of 1930-1937 when Arab
      Communist Parties went through a process of
      "Arabization" -- a process that the Comintern actually
      INSISTED upon, these individuals were "exposed" as
      Zionist apologists.

      The fact that a number of prominent closet Zionists
      were exposed in the mid-1930s, does not mean that the
      activities of crypto-Zionists in the ranks of the
      Communist movement were halted, unfortunately. As
      World War II approached, they were able in fact to
      recover and redouble their efforts.

      One can discern the change in the position of the
      Comintern from its main publication "The Communist
      International" which in October 1937 published a
      powerfully pro-Palestinian article by a British
      Communist who stressed that the Palestinian uprising
      could not be dismissed as the work of pro-Nazi
      elements, because any honorable people would react as
      had the Palestinians to the invasion and colonisation
      of their country. Yet within a year that same
      Comintern publication was writing that the Arab
      movement in Palestine was a "creature" or "tool" of
      the agents of Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister.

      At the same time Soviet rhetoric against the British
      and French colonialists in general was sharply toned
      down, as Moscow sought the support of those powers
      against Hitler. The French Communist party openly
      endorsed the retention of the French overseas empire,
      and Moscow only put up feeble and half-hearted
      objections in the League of Nations when France handed
      the Syrian city of Iskandrona to the Turks as a bribe
      to keep Turkey from joining Germany in 1937.

      Thus the switch in Soviet policy was not the making of
      Andrey Gromyko alone, nor did it take place in 1947.
      It came ten years earlier and was intermingled with
      Soviet global strategy.

      In fact in 1947 a much more potent force in Soviet
      foreign policy than Gromyko was Vyacheslav Molotov,
      who left behind a kind of "memoirs" in the form of
      conversations that he had with a Communist poet Felix
      Chuev when the former Soviet Foreign Minister was
      living a private life in retirement. ("Molotov
      Remembers: inside Kremlin politics -- conversations
      with Felix Chuev." Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1993.)
      Molotov in fact tells Chuev that among the Soviet
      leaders "everyone objected" to the formation of
      "Israel" "everyone," that is "but us -- me and
      Stalin."

      So if Chuev and Molotov can be believed the initiative
      for the 1947 vote came from the very top of the Soviet
      leadership, not from Gromyko. But it came for very
      definite reasons.

      When after the creation of the Zionist entity took
      place and the role of the Zionists as collaborators
      with US imperialism became clear, Stalin reversed his
      position on the Zionists or crypto-Zionists within the
      USSR (though the USSR did not un-recognize the Zionist
      entity).

      Molotov personally was dropped from the reorganized
      Soviet leadership in 1952. His wife, of Jewish
      origin, had been arrested before this specifically for
      repeated public expressions of support for Zionism,
      including an enthusiastic public welcome for the first
      Zionist ambassador to the USSR, Golda Meir. In
      Molotov Remembers, Molotov himself expressed the view
      that he would not have survived physically even, had
      Stalin lived longer.

      In fact Molotov was ousted from power not simply
      because of his wife's Zionism. Molotov had been
      pushing for another Jewish nationalist project, the
      establishment of a Jewish region in the Crimea, in
      addition to the Jewish region in Birobidzhan. The
      project was backed by American Jewish financiers who
      had also backed the Birobidzhan effort (and the
      Zionists entity in Palestine, as it turns out).

      By the early 1950s Stalin no longer had illusions that
      world Jewry could be used as a fifth column against
      imperialism and he denounced Molotov sharply at a
      speech before a Plenary meeting of the Central
      Committee of the Soviet Communist Party on 16 October
      1952.

      The speech was first published in a Russian Communist
      newspaper "Glasnost'" after the fall of the Sovier
      Union and was translated by the Stalinist publication
      Northstar Compass, where it is available on line:

      http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0004/stal1952.htm

      Throughout eastern Europe as well, crypto-Zionists
      were purged in the very early 1950s. The head of the
      Czechoslovak Communist Party himself was executed on
      such charges.

      In the Soviet Union a number of doctors, all Jewish,
      were arrested for Zionist and CIA spy activity shortly
      before Stalin's death in March of 1953. The so-called
      "Doctor's Plot" in which these individuals were
      charged with plotting the medical killings of Soviet
      leaders, is usually dismissed as "Soviet
      anti-Semitism" but the charges were dropped after the
      death of Stalin, and the anti-Zionist campaign was
      sharply curtailed as well.

      The whole role of Zionists and Zionist influence
      within the ranks of the Communist movement must be
      thoroughly investigated. While the careers of
      individuals like Gromyko might well have in one way or
      another contributed to the Zionist subversion of
      Soviet and Communist policy, this is a much bigger
      phenomenon, and much more complex.


      -------------------------
      NOW, ZIAD'S REPLY TO MY REPLY (INCLUDING THE FULL TEXT
      OF THAT "MARXIST-LENINST" ARTICLE THAT HAS DISAPPEARED
      FROM THE INTERNET):

      Comrade Mohammed and members of AN,

      I summarize he points by comrade Mohammed in the
      following:

      1. The decision to recognize the Zionist entity was
      probably that of Stalin and Molotov (according to
      Molotov's testomony) due to WWII calcultions in favor
      of a coalition with imperialism against Nazi Germany
      and for the defeat of facism including Soviet
      mitakenly attributing the Palestinian revolt of 1936
      to pro-Nazi sabotage.

      2.The work of crypto Zionists in sabotaging the CPSU
      position.
      Please note that the same line of argument may apply
      to Groymko himself who is who may have been swayed by
      Zionist agents in the Soviet Union,

      3.In fairness to the article i quoted i am including
      it below for your review and commentary. In it you
      will find that the article condmened Litvinov as enemy
      of the Soviet Union but that nonetheless his Palestine
      paper was on the correct Marxist-Leninest position at
      the time it was written and he represented it.

      4.The orgininal website where this article came from
      had over 60pages over the issue of recognition of
      "israel" it was brought down this last month while i
      was preparing the paper and could not go back to it.
      If any of the list members can access it from their
      location please forward to us the documents
      (http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/All30table.htm).
      Here is all i could retrieve from the site before it
      went down:

      Ziad
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      "LEGALISING" THE FORMATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL BY
      THE UNITED NATIONS PARTITION & THE USSR RECOGNITION -
      1947



      At the early stages of the Comintern, the views of
      Lenin were still unchallenged by the later revisionist
      opposition, who would finally succeed in hi-jacking
      the Comintern, only by 1928.

      Even when Stalin took over the leadership of the
      CPSU(B), until 1925 his views were not easily ignored.
      Matters within the Comintern, were however dominated
      by the succeeding revisionist factions - first of
      Zinoviev, and then those of Bukharin, and then by that
      of Dimitrov-Kuussinen-Manuilsky.

      At the early stages then, policies were in general
      correctly Marxist-Leninist. For instance, article
      (11f), was passed at the Second Congress of Comintern
      (still attended by Lenin), that condemned the attempts
      of foreign imperialism to establish the divisive
      "Jewish" state of Israel; in Arab Palestine.



      "(11 f) It is essential constantly to expose and to
      explain to the widest masses of the working people
      everywhere, and particularly in the backward
      countries, the deception practiced by the imperialist
      Powers with the help of the privileged classes in the
      oppressed countries in creating ostensibly politically
      independent States which are in reality completely
      dependent on them economically, financially, and
      militarily. A glaring example of the deception
      practiced on the working classes of an oppressed
      nation by the combined efforts of Entente imperialism
      and the bourgeoisie of that same nations is offered by
      the Zionists� venture (And by Zionism as a whole,
      which under the pretense of creating a Jewish state in
      Palestine in fact surrenders the Arab working people
      of Palestine, where the Jewish workers form only a
      small minority to exploitation by England). In present
      international circumstances there is no salvation for
      dependent and weak nations except as an alliance of
      Soviet republics."

      Theses 2nd Comintern Congress: AThe National &
      Colonial Question A; Ed J.Degras; Vol 1; p.144.

      It must be asked then, why Andrey A. Gromyko, the
      UN representative of the USSR, and the Soviet
      ambassador to the USA, voted at the United Nations, to
      recognise the formation of the state of Israel in
      1947? While the European Communist Parties were being
      ideologically re-educated by the Cominform, in the
      weakened state of the USSR it turned out that Andrei
      Gromyko was appointed to the United Nations. Gromyko�s
      later overt revisionism was clear. But at that time,
      he was not revealed as a revisionist.

      The Palestine Communist Party had been agitating
      very publicly that there should be no division of the
      territory of Palestine between Jewish immigrants and
      the local indigenous Palestinians Arab population.
      However at the very first session of the UN in San
      Francisco, Gromyko voted for the division of Palestine
      and the establishment of the state of Israel. This
      policy went against the long history of
      Marxist-Leninists, who had argued that Jews should be
      assimilated in the country they lived, and should join
      the class struggle there.



      The result was a temporary victory for the revisionist
      faction inside the leading echelons of the CPSU(B),
      led by Khrushchev.



      As Walter Laquer, one of the most well known
      historians of the Zionist movement puts it, Gromyko
      was very much in the vanguard of the push for an
      independent Israel. Even propelling the hesitant
      President Truman and the USA into his wake:



      "President Truman and his advisers were firmly
      resolved not to give any lead to the United Nations
      but to wait for the emergence of a consensus. Much to
      the surprise of the Zionists the Soviet attitude was
      much more positive. This first became evident when the
      Jewish Agency asked to be permitted (as a matter of
      simple justice�) to appear at the UN on behalf of the
      Jewish people since the Arabs were already represented
      there. They had the immediate support of the Soviet
      delegation, and on May 15 Gromyko spoke not without
      sympathy about the aspirations towards Palestine of a
      considerable part of the Jewish people, of the
      calamities and sufferings they had undergone
      throughout the last war, (which defy description�) and
      the grave conditions in which the masses of the Jewish
      population found themselves after the war. He
      mentioned partition as one of several possible
      solutions. This unexpected support continued
      throughout 1947 and led later that year to the Soviet
      decision to vote for partition. Traditionally the
      Soviet attitude to Zionism had been extremely hostile,
      and since Moscow reverted to is earlier position not
      long after the state of Israel came into being once
      can only conclude that the short-lived rapprochement
      came exactly at the right moment for the Zionists.
      Without it they would not have stood a chance... On 15
      may 1947 the General Assembly approved the
      establishment of a committee of eleven to investigate
      the Palestine question to make proposals for a
      settlement...The UNSCOP committee (United Nations
      Special Committee on Palestine) majority came out in
      favour of partition.. And were published on 31 August
      1947. Both the majority and the minority reports were
      drafted by the same man - Dr Ralphe Bunche.... a
      hesitating President Truman gave his assent to the
      partition scheme on 9 October 1947... The vote was
      taken on 29 November and the motion carried by 33 to
      13.... The state of Israel came into being at a
      meeting of the National Council at 4 pm on Friday 14
      May 1948.. The first country to recognise the new
      state was the USA.. Within the next few days the
      Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala
      Uruguay and other countries followed".

      Laquer W; AA History of Zionism"; New York; 1976; p.
      578; 582; 586.

      It is clear that Gromyko was also fighting a
      propaganda war for an independent state of Israel
      based in Palestine, inside the USSR. Clearly even
      members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (see
      below) such as Solomon (or Shlomo) Mikhoels were
      influenced by this, as related by Teller:

      "In a small and select group the conversation turned
      to Gromyko�s speech on the Palestine question.
      Actor-director Shlomo Mikhoels alluded to a passage in
      one of the Yiddish classics by Mendel Mocher Sefarim
      in which a Jew ask a Russian peasant to point him the
      way to the Land of Israel. "Gromyko", said Mikhoels in
      exaltation, "is that good Gentile who shows us the way
      to the Land of Israel".

      Teller, Judd T: "The Kremlin, The Jews and the Middle
      East"; p.106; New York; 1957;



      What seems to have happened is apparent from recent
      detailed memorandums that reveal that the USSR first
      did take a principled Marxist-Leninist line which was
      then subverted.

      In order to be clear, we show this process below,
      citing both the primary and the secondary source.

      The tremendous refugee problem after the war,
      obviously consisted of a huge Jewish population. The
      USSR government was already aware of proposals that
      this should be remedied by the formation of a state
      inside Germany:



      "20 February 1945, the Third European Division of the
      USSR People�s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs (NKID)
      sent a memorandum (from the Jewish Committee - dated
      11.11.1944 - ed) to Deputy People�s Commissar for
      Foreign Affairs V. G. Dekanozov. It informed him that
      the Soviet Embassy in Italy had forwarded two letters
      to the NKJD, one addressed to I. V. Stalin, the other
      to V. M. Molotov, from the Rome-based Jewish Committee
      of the International Union of Emigrants and Refugees.
      Enclosed with the letters was a proposal for creating
      an independent Jewish state on German territory and a
      map of Germany where the prospective state was
      delineated."

      Strizhov I;:" The Soviet Position on the Establishment
      of the State of Israel"; Op Cit; p.303

      As will be discussed later, proposals were also
      made by the progressive Soviet Jews for the resolution
      of the problem in the Crimean republic of the USSR.
      However by now, the Zionists had already made
      Palestine their goal.

      Initially the objective reality of a larger
      settler population - whether illegally arrived or not
      - inside Palestine was to be confronted by the
      remaining Marxist-Leninists within the CPSU(B), by the
      correct insistence that the mandate of Britain over
      Palestine should be lifted; and possibly replaced by a
      Mandate responsible to the entire UN.



      It was rightly pointed out, by the CPSU(B)
      Marxist-Leninists, that the British had "failed" to
      peacefully resolve the situation.



      This was articulated on 27 July 1945 in a memo
      signed by M.M.Litvinov in his post as, Chairman of the
      "Committee on Preparing Peace Treaties and the Postwar
      Order". Although Litvinov was at best a vacillating
      Marxist-Leninist, and at worst a concious enemy of the
      USSR state [as several sources can attest to] -
      nonetheless the key memo itself had been set up by the
      diplomats within the USSR People�s Commissariat for
      Foreign Affairs (NKID), who:



      "Sent a memorandum entitled 'The Palestine Question'"
      to Stalin, Molotov and the Deputy Ministers of Foreign
      Affairs. Its conclusion read:

      1. No matter how hard the British may try to prove
      that their present policy in Palestine conforms to the
      Balfour Declaration, it is obvious that they have
      failed to live up to the mandate entrusted to them.
      This was admitted in the.. statements by high-ranking
      British statesmen. This is sufficient justification
      for taking the Palestine mandate away from the
      British.

      2.The Palestine question cannot be duly settled
      without impinging upon the wishes and rights of Jews
      or Arabs, or perhaps both. The British government is
      in equal measure subject to the influence of the Arab
      states and world Jewry. Hence its difficulties in
      choosing the correct means to settle the Palestine
      problem.

      3. The US government is subject to the same
      influences. While British Palestine policy is
      necessarily affected mainly by orientation towards
      Arab interests, the American government is subject in
      the first place to the influence of the powerful US
      Jewry. It should be recalled that at the latest
      presidential elections both the Democratic and the
      Republican parties felt compelled to issue
      declarations on their attitude to Palestine, demanding
      unrestricted immigration of Jews and unrestricted
      rights for Jews to their own land. At the same time,
      the US government would hardly choose to quarrel with
      the Arabs, in view of the fact that the oil pipeline
      from Saudi Arabia in which they have a stake will run
      through hundreds of kilometres of Arab territory. That
      would put the US government in as difficult a position
      regarding Palestine as the British government.

      4. The USSR, free from either Arab or Jewish
      influence, would be in a better position to tackle the
      Palestine issue. This at least entitles it to request
      a temporary trusteeship over Palestine until a more
      radical solution is found.

      5. The British attach to Palestine, which guards the
      approaches to the Suez Canal and has an outlet for
      Iraqi oil on its territory, too much importance for us
      to expect them to consent even to a temporary transfer
      of Palestine to the hands of another state,
      particularly, the USSR.

      6. In the event that the Soviet request is rejected
      the following solution suggests itself: transfer of
      Palestine to the collective trusteeship of three
      states - the USSR, USA and Britain. These three powers
      will be able to take the requisite decisions
      collectively, paying less tribute to the opinion of
      the Arab or the Jewish population than either the
      American or British government acting on its own would
      feel obliged to do.

      7.The provisions of collective trusteeship shall be
      bound neither by the Balfour Declaration nor by any
      promises Britain has earlier given as the mandatary
      power, so that the new collective administration could
      tackle the Palestine problem in all fairness, in
      accordance with the interests of the entire population
      and the new imperatives of political realities and
      general security."

      Strizhov I;:" The Soviet Position on the Establishment
      of the State of Israel"; Op Cit; p.304-305; Citing
      5.Arkhiv vneshnei politiki MID SSSR (AVP),fond (f.) .
      07,opis' (op.) 12a, papka (pk.) 42, delo (d.) 6, pp.
      36-8

      This generally correct line, given the new
      circumstances, continued to hold until May 1946.

      By then the British and the USA imperialists had
      continued the general policy of divide and rule. They
      had established the Anglo-American Committee, which
      had alienated both Jews and Arabs:



      "In December 1945 an Anglo-American Committee was set
      up to investigate the situation in Palestine. It was
      entrusted with a wide range of tasks connected with
      the Palestine problem as a whole. The Committee�s
      report was made public in April 1946 and was met with
      an outburst of violent recriminations throughout the
      Arab states and with bitter disappointment on the part
      of the Jews".

      Strizhov I;:" The Soviet Position on the Establishment
      of the State of Israel"; Op Cit; p.305

      The previous line of the USSR was brought up to
      date, in order to acknowledge that the Anglo-American
      Committee had attempted to continue the British
      imperialist mandate "jointly".

      In the circumstances, the correct Marxist-Leninist
      line was taken - to use the UN to "reveal the
      aspirations" of the imperialists to "prevent the
      interference of other countries" in settling the
      issue.



      It was correctly stated (and consistent with
      previous Marxist-Leninist views) that anti-racism and
      anti-Semitism was a reflection of larger forces and
      could not be dealt with simply by creating a state -
      that anyway could not "house" every one subject to
      racism.

      Moreover it correctly noted that in the current
      situation unless the issue was brought up, the British
      and USA would succeed in enforcing their will - "our
      silence on the Palestine issue" .

      The correct approach however was to allow the
      Arabs to raise the question at the UN. This was put in
      an up-dated memo to Dekanozov, Molotov�s Deputy:



      "A memorandum entitled 'The Palestine Question', based
      on the results of the Litvinov Committee, was compiled
      by the Middle East Department of the USSR Foreign
      Ministry and on 15 May 1946 was sent to Dekanozov. It
      read: 'Attempts by Britain and the US jointly to
      continue the British mandate outside the framework of
      the UN reveal their aspiration to prevent the
      interference of other countries in the settlement of
      the Palestine question until Palestine is fully under
      the control of the US and Britain. Our silence on the
      Palestine issue might be interpreted by the US,
      Britain, Arabs and Jews as the Soviet Union�s partial
      approval of the proposals put forth by the committee.
      Bearing this in mind and in view of the fact that
      official and unofficial representatives of both Arab
      states and Jewish organizations are running to the
      Soviet Union in order to have the Palestine problem
      settled it would be expedient to set forth the Soviet
      point of view on the Palestine problem in two or three
      articles to be published in the press. Later our
      diplomatic representatives may refer to these articles
      in private conversations if they are approached by
      Arab or Jewish representatives in connection with the
      Palestine question."

      Strizhov I;; Op Cit; p.305 citing: AVP, f. 06, op. 08,
      pk. 42, d. 694, pp. 2-4

      After this preamble, the most likely
      Marxist-Leninist position advisable, was crystallised
      as being to reject the Anglo-American Committee�s
      position as "incompetent" and to insist upon
      abrogation of the British mandate in Palestine:

      "Presumably, our position on the Palestine question
      should be as follows:

      1.The Anglo-American committee set up to study the
      Palestine question without the participation of the UN
      was not competent to discuss. ..and tackle the
      Palestine problem without the participation of the
      parties directly concerned.

      2.The Jewish question in Europe cannot be solved
      through Jewish immigration to Palestine, inasmuch as
      only complete eradication of racism and the
      democratization of European countries can create
      normal conditions for the existence of the Jewish
      masses.

      3.The British mandate in Palestine should be abrogated
      since it is impeding a radical solution of the
      Palestine question and jeopardizing security in the
      Middle East. All foreign troops should be withdrawn
      from Palestine.

      4. Palestine should be placed under the trusteeship of
      the UN which within a certain period of time will lay
      the groundwork for a sovereign and democratic
      Palestine. We must not submit the Palestine question
      for consideration by the UN. It should be raised by
      the Arab UN members themselves. We should only voice
      our opinion and uphold it. It would be expedient to
      postpone the publication of articles on the Palestine
      question until the session of the Council of Foreign
      Ministers has completed its deliberations."

      Strizhov I; Op Cit; p.305 citing: AVP, f. 06, op. 08,
      pk. 42, d. 694, pp. 2-4

      ------------------------------------

      NOW MY SECOND REPLY:

      Dear Comrade Ziad!

      Thanks for sending the entire file. I know we are
      trying to limit file size but this was the only way
      for me to see it, and I thank you.

      I have a few quick remarks.

      1. Yes, Gromyko was subject to crypto-Zionist
      influence. I don't deny that at all. In fact he
      doubtless WAS subject to such influence because the
      whole Soviet establishment was. That's what my
      problem is with singling out Gromyko. It was NOT JUST
      Gromyko, it was a problem with the whole Soviet
      establishment.

      All the accounts of Gromyko pressuring Truman in
      favour of Zionism and of his other pro-Zionist
      activities were simply expressions of what was the
      official Soviet line at that time. Gromyko didn't go
      off and do this on his own. If you ever have the
      "pleasure" of reading Soviet material on Palestine
      from the 1945-1948 period you'll find it is largely
      Judeo-centric and pro-Zionist.

      Ghassan Kanafani in his account of the 1936 uprising
      mentions that in 1948 Pravda compared the Zionist
      settlers in Palestine with the Bolshevik
      revolutionaries in Russia. That unfortunately is the
      extent to which Soviet policy was skewed in a Zionist
      direction at that time. Sad but true. So it was not
      just Gromyko or some mythical "revisionist clique" of
      some handful of people. It affected the whole foreign
      policy of the USSR and therefore the line adopted by
      Communist Parties around the world.


      2. On Litvinov's letter. I don't find that to be a
      "correct Marxist-Leninist" letter at all.

      Please look at how it opens:

      > 1. No matter how hard the British may try to prove
      > that their present policy in Palestine conforms to
      > the Balfour Declaration, it is obvious that they
      > have failed to live up to the mandate entrusted to
      > them.

      The Balfour Declaration was PART of the British
      Mandate. That is, the British received the Mandate to
      rule Palestine from the League of Nations "on
      condition" that the Balfour declaration be fulfilled!
      That is what the wording of the Mandate says. So when
      Litvinov brings up the fact that the British "have
      failed to live up to the mandate" as the context of
      this statement makes very clear, Litvinov is actually
      COMPLAINING that the British did not fulfil the
      Balfour declaration well enough!

      He is actually calling for Jewish colonization of
      Palestine!

      As I say, if one reads Soviet publications from that
      period it is obvious that the USSR favoured the
      establishment of a Jewish home of some sort in
      Palestine. Molotov in those memoirs I mentioned said
      that they initially thought a bi-national Arab and
      Jewish state might be a solution, but that proved
      impossible, so they abandoned the idea and went for
      partition and a Jewish state instead.

      But up until 1937 it was the Comintern position that
      Palestine was Arab, not binational. I would say that
      THAT was the Marxist-Leninist position. Where else on
      the globe have Marxists accepted the legitimacy of
      colonies such as a "bi-national" Palestine would
      entail? Did anyone ever suggest a bi-national French
      and Arab Algeria, for example? The French colonists
      were in Algeria for 130 years before the Algerian
      people tossed them out.

      Read carefully the rest of Litvinov's memo. It says
      that the British can't solve the Palestine question
      because they're too worried about what the Arabs
      think. The US is mainly concerned with the Jews but
      also is afraid to anger the Arabs. Only the USSR has
      "no fear of angering either one of them," he
      concludes.

      A correct Marxist-Leninist position would couch this
      in terms of the self-determination and liberation of
      the Arabs, not in terms of who is afraid of the Arabs
      or the Jews. In fact Litvinov faults both the British
      and the Americans for being too worried about Arab
      reaction!

      Those of us who identify with Marxism-Leninism a
      valuable theory and guide to action must be very
      grateful that the United Nations did NOT hand the
      Palestine Mandate to the USSR as Litvinov wanted. If
      it had, then the USSR would be single handedly
      responsible for establishing the Zionist entity. That
      was the thrust of Soviet policy at the time, to win
      over the Jews of the world through support of Zionism.
      If the USSR had taken over the Mandate, it would have
      fulfilled the Balfour declaration in the hopes that
      world Jewry would then be irrevocably pro-Soviet.

      Where then would Arab Marxists find room for
      themselves? It would be very difficult indeed!

      3. This "Marxist-Leninist" article presents some
      interesting documents, but it is superficial. Those
      documents are drawn entirely from anti-Communist
      sources -- J. Degras with her Cold-War documentary
      history of the Communist movement, and Zionist Walter
      Lacquer who also considers himself an expert on
      "Communism" from an anti-Communist perspective.

      Both thus present selected documents but fail to
      analyse Soviet policy systematically or "organically"
      -- because Cold Warriors, as we know, disregard
      Marxism, class analysis, and anti-imperialism as "just
      rhetoric -- yet these were basic underlying features
      of Soviet foreign policy even when it took a mistaken
      pro-Zionist course. Therefore the Cold Warrior
      analysis always has this superficiality about it.

      4. The author of this "Marxist-Leninist" article who
      seems to label everyone who served the Soviet Union
      and Communist movement after Lenin's death as a
      "revisionist," takes those superficial accounts at
      face value. Thus, because Lacquer had western reports
      and memoirs about Gromyko's behaviour, concerted
      Soviet policy is trivialised in Lacquer's account as
      if it were a matter of anecdotes by ex-US State
      Department bureaucrats.

      The trivialization is carried to its (il)logical
      conclusion by the author of the "Marxist-Leninist"
      article who finds the problem of Zionist influence in
      the USSR boils down to the "revisionist Gromyko", when
      in fact the problem is much bigger.

      As I said, the problem in 1947-1948 had to do with the
      whole of Soviet foreign policy and therefore that of
      the Communist Parties, not simply one or two
      individual statesmen.

      But the issue for us is actually much bigger, even.
      It is not merely a question of asking why the USSR
      voted for partition, and then labelling one or two
      Soviet officials as "revisionists." The problem of
      Jewish nationalists worming their way into leftist
      organizations and skewing them to serve their
      particular Jewish sectarian group interests is very
      big and is still very much with us.

      Today we read of how supposedly "anti-Zionist Jews"
      actually go around billing themselves as the "leaders"
      of the peace movement in the west and therefore take
      on the privilege of telling the peace movement how to
      conceive of the Jewish question and the Zionist
      entity.

      To this day, Jews in Communist and leftist parties
      around the world exert a powerful influence
      particularly whenever issues related to Palestine and
      the Arabs arise. The World Socialist Website, for
      example, some months ago, published a call for a
      "United States of the Middle East" that would abandon
      all nationalism and be non-national in character
      concerning itself with social class only. "No Arab
      states" would mean that the "Jewish state" could
      remain, because the alien quality of that colony would
      suddenly become irrelevant.

      Almost all official Communist Parties, including those
      in the Arab world continue to insist on the "right of
      'Israel' to exist. In the USA, needless to say, the
      so-called Communist Party USA is virtually a Zionist
      party, and reportedly after the fall of the USSR its
      main source of income whas become the wealthy liberal
      Jewish community in New York City -- a community that
      counts very few genuine anti-Zionists among its
      members.

      Yet another example of this crypto-Zionist influence
      can be seen in how much of the left has been luke-warm
      about defending Iraq against US-UK-Zionist aggression.
      They almost universally failed to identify the Iraqi
      regime as the most anti-imperialist Arab regime,
      preferring instead to fill their supposedly "anti-war"
      articles with denunciations of the Iraqi state. Since
      the Bush Administration's stated aim in its aggression
      was "regime change" the left with its virtually
      ubiquitous denunciations of the Iraqi state was in
      fact leaving the anti-war movement vulnerable to the
      propaganda of the imperialist-Zionist aggressors.

      5. By directing people's attention at Gromyko or at
      such things as the "Zinoviev clique" or the
      "Dimitrov-Kuusinen-Manuilsky clique", this article,
      actually, intentionally or unintentionally diverts us
      from the real issue which is not specific individuals
      but the issue of Jewish-Zionist manipulation of the
      Communist and workers movement for their own narrow
      confessionalist ends. (And also the question of how
      Soviet leaders dealt with their world strategy -- an
      issue also not unrelated to the role of international
      Jewish interests.) That article makes the reader
      think he has the "answer" when he dumps the blame for
      the partition on Andrey Gromyko, when in fact the
      answer is much more complex and also much more
      contemporary because we still face that problem --
      many years after the death of Gromyko.

      I also feel that by reducing a pro-Zionist stance on
      Palestine to "revisionism" the author of that
      "Marxist-Leninist" article in that way too diverts
      attention from the Jewish Zionist question, and tries
      to get us to focus on something that is a matter of
      ideological purity (revisionism vs. authentic Marxism)
      rather than looking at the national aspect and
      Judeocentric dimensions of the Palestine/Arab issues
      and the Zionist problem, respectively.

      It might seem superficially very "materialistic" to
      ignore national specifics and reduce everything to
      social class. That is one of the most common tricks
      that pseudo-leftists resourt to and many of those are
      crypto-Zionists who seek to negate the national issue
      in the Arab world to suit their political agenda --
      that is not "their" Marxist agenda, but their
      Judeo-centric agenda. Yet a Marxist of the stature of
      Lenin reminds us that the national dimension cannot be
      ignored. In the context of how to handle the national
      question within Soviet Russia, Lenin made the
      following remarks at the Eighth Congress of the
      Russian Communist Party (bolshevik) on 19 March 1919:

      "But at present, the essence of the question of
      self-determination of nations is that different
      nations are advancing in the same historical
      direction, but by very different zigzags and bypaths,
      and that the more cultured nations are obviously
      proceeding in a way that differs from that of the less
      cultured nations. Finland advanced in a different
      way. Germany is advancing in a different way. Comrade
      Pyatakov is a thousand times right when he says that
      we need unity. But we must strive for it by means of
      propaganda, by Party influence, by forming united
      trade unions. But here, too, we must not act in a
      stereotyped way. If we do away with this point, or
      formulate it differently, we shall be deleting the
      national question from the programme. This might be
      done if there were people with no specific national
      features. But there are no such people, and we cannot
      build socialist society in any other way." (Lenin,
      Collected Works, vol. 29, pp. 195-196.)

      "There are no such people" as have "no specific
      national features".

      I fear that the author of this "Marxist-Leninist"
      article is first stripping the issue of the Soviet
      stand on the partition of Palestine of its national
      dimension and then labelling that kind of a distorted
      outlook on the matter as "anti-revisionist" and
      "Marxist." He may not be trying to distort, but I
      think he has perhaps got into the habit of looking
      away from the question of crypto-Zionists and of the
      national dimension of the Palestine question. Yet
      these are key issues if we are really going to examine
      the erroneous approach taken by the USSR on the
      question of Palestine and Zionism from 1938-1948 - and
      indeed of the weakness of the Soviet position since
      that time.




      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
      http://search.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.