Ikhwan—The Muslim Brotherhood—Reactionary Agents of US Imperialism

An article by Jimmy Jancovich, a communist born in Egypt and living in Paris, called “The Egyptian Revolution and the National Bourgeoisie” in Communist Review is a short review of Egyptian history in the last two centuries describing how Egypt has had several economic advantages since Napoleon, but has been held back by British and now US imperialism.

Jankovich describes how, after WW1, a delegation of Egyptian nationalists went to Versailles to attend the Peace Coference in 1919 to ask for independence. Not surprisingly the request was refused and the British Protectorate re-imposed, causing massive protests—like the ones we have seen recently—that were brutally suppressed by our “heroes”, the British army. In the course of all this trade unions and a communist party were set up, but both were suppressed. Even so they sprang up again a decade or so later in the 1930s. Jancovic goes on:

It was in this context of repression of the democratic and egalitarian national movement that the Moslem Brotherhood (Ikhwan el-Muslimeen, in Arabic) was formed as part of the reactionary backlash. For all its anti-British rhetoric, it was part of the repression of the national movement. Even its Moslem pretensions are fake. In fact, the Ikhwan’s ideology developed into a copy of Wahabism, to such an extent that, in the mid-1930s, its leader Sheikh Hassan al-Banna was so severely criticised that he stopped preaching religion and concentrated on campaigning on the Palestine issue in support of Husseini, the pro-Nazi leader of the revolt there.


The Wahabi sect, created in what is now Saudi Arabia, was (and is) so retrograde that, from the outset, it was condemned as heretical by all other Moslem trends—and there are a lot of them—be they Sunni or Shi’ite. It only became respectable when its main disciples, the Saudi Arabian and Qatari ruling clans, became rich enough, thanks to oil and US backing, to buy friends and influence people. The financing of the Moslem Brothers began via purely charitable associations in the 1960s and became more openly political in the 1970s.


This is why I object to the use of the term Islamist or Jihadist to describe these various extreme right-wing terrorist groups. They should be called Wahabists, thus placing the blame where it belongs—at the door of America and its main ally in the region, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaida, et al, were from the start US creations. To call them Islamists is to play their game of pretending that they are the true interpreters of the Islamic religion—and to feed Islamophobia in our own country.


In any case, the Ikhwan was just an extreme rightwing group with a taste for gratuitous violence and assassination, and a habit of doing the monarchy’s dirty work for it, while pretending to be ultra-nationalist. Apart from the Ikhwan’s violence against critics and opponents at local level, it assassinated Prime Minister Nokrashi Pasha, a moderate conservative suspected of links to the more liberal-democratic Wafd (“Delegate”, after the Versailles Independence Delegation) Party. It also organised the Cairo fires in 1952 which provided king Farouk with the excuse he needed to dismiss the Wafdists government and replace it by a more conservative one. It was their attempt to assassinate Nasser in 1954 that almost led to the sect’s extinction and made its leaders flee to Switzerland for asylum—you have to be pretty rich to get accepted as a foreign resident in Switzerland! From there they continue to play their old game in Europe while trying to give it a “modern intellectual” image—for European consumption only.

US Imperialsm for Beginners

A Practical Marxism and Communism in Short Sentences

Our Society and Why We Want to Change it: Capitalism

The aim of the Communist Party is to achieve a Socialist Britain in which the means of production, distribution and exchange will be socially owned and utilised in a planned way for the benefit of all.

Rule 2 of the Aims and Constitution of the Communist Party

Britain, And Its People

Whoever travels through our land must be struck by its beauty. Despite over 200 years of industrial development, Britain’s varied loveliness is world famed. But, in addition to great natural beauty, Britain is rich—rich in natural resources, in the skill of her workers, in her capacity to produce everything necessary for a good life for all.

Britain’s greatest single asset is the British people, who in their long history have often been foremost in the fight against tyranny and oppression:

• the British people were the first in the world to fight and end the absolute power of kings in the English Revolution of 1640
• the British working class pioneered trade unionism and the Co-operative movement
• the struggle of the English Chartists in the forties of the last century is an inspiration to the workers of all countries

Britain could be a paradise for the people—its skilled working people could build a new and better life as rapidly as any other people in the world. But Britain is not a paradise for the peqple. On the contrary, there is:

• massive unemployment and part time working
• continually rising prices, and bitter resistance by the government and employers to wage increases
• a vicious programme of cutting our social services to the bone
• starvation and hypothermia among old working class pensioners, starving on miserable pensions, and desperate hardship for our disabled people
• cultural domination of our country by the US
• a continuous history of wars, the result of Britain’s membership of NATO and other war alliances, on behalf of the US
• a constant waste of taxpayer pounds to finance costly nuclear submarines, though the ostensible reason for them, the Soviet Union, has disintegrated.

…to be selective! All of this is the consequence of policies supported largely by both the Tories and right-wing Labour leaders. But why? Who and what is responsible?

Underlying it is the fundamental cause of all the sufferings and tribulations of the people, namely, that Britain is a capitalist country, ruled for and by capitalists for their profit and interests. It is the capitalists and those right-wing leaders of the Labour movement who support their policies, who are responsible for the position we find ourselves in. What is wrong with Britain is the way society is organised, the “system of society” which prevails. Some of the main features of this society are:

1. It is divided into rich and poor—a tiny handful of rich (1 per cent of the population own more than half the nation’s wealth) who do no work and the overwhelming majority who work their whole lives through:
   • Large fortunes comprise a quarter of this country’s wealth. This is owned by about 5,000 people—one-fifth of 1 per cent of the nation. There are hundreds of thousands of capitalist firms, but only a few hundred of them take half the total yearly profit made in Britain.
   • Millions of people can exist in this country only by drawing public assistance. But there are roughly 100,000 big bosses, 300,000 small employers and 650,000 managers—a total of around 1 million who live off what the rest of us, the twenty or so millions of the working population, produce.
   • These working people produce everything and own very little. The million produce nothing, own practically everything and dominate everything—the Government, Parliament, the press, the courts, book publishing, the films, ITV and the BBC.
2. Wars—involving incalculable suffering to the people—are a regular occurrence. There have been two terrible wars within the lifetime of elderly adults in Britain, and continuous wars backing US imperialism, especially in the Middle East.
3. Empire—Britain is the centre of a huge empire, now called “the Commonwealth” covering a quarter of the earth’s surface and containing a quarter of the world’s population. This empire was acquired by brutal conquest, just as the US is now acquiring its empire. It brought huge profits to British capitalists and financiers. It cost the lives of thousands of British soldiers and hundreds of millions of pounds spent in trying to keep the colonial peoples down. While many of these peoples have now won their political independence, vast profits are still squeezed out of them, for British firms still dominate decisive sections of the economic life of the poorer colonial countries.

These are some of the features of the system we live under which is called capitalism.

What Is Capitalism?

Here we deal with two main aspects only:

1. It is a system of exploitation. Capitalism is a system in which the means for producing the wealth—the land, the mines, factories, the machines, etc—are in private hands. It is true that in Britain some industries—mining, the railways, electricity—have sometimes been taken out of private hands and have been nationalized. But the first charge on the nationalized industries is compensation for the old, private shareholders. Nationalised boards are manned overwhelmingly by ex-directors of the industries concerned. In any case only around 20 per cent of industry at most has ever been nationalized. The remaining 80 per cent stays in private hands. Thus a tiny handful of people own these “means of production” as they are called. But they do not work them. The immense majority of the people own nothing (in the sense that they can live on what they own) but their power to work.

   By exploitation we mean living off the labour of other people. There have been previous forms of exploitation. In slave society, the slave owners lived off the labour of the slaves who were their property. In feudal society, the feudal lords lived off the forced labour of the serfs. In capitalist society, the worker is neither a slave nor yet a serf, that is, forced to do free, unpaid labour for a master. But he is exploited just the same, even though the form of this exploitation is not so open and clear as was the case with the slaves and the serfs.

   The essence of exploitation under capitalism consists in this—that the workers, when set to work with raw materials and machinery, produce far more in values than what is paid out by the capitalists in wages, for raw materials, etc. In short, they produce a surplus which belongs to the capitalists and for which they are not paid. Thus they are robbed of the values they produce. This is the source of capitalist profit. It is on this surplus, produced by the workers, that the capitalist lives in riches and luxury.

   Let us take actual examples of this using werll established historical data. Official figures show that in 1955 the value added by labour to the raw materials, etc. in the cement industry came to £1,870 per worker. Average wages and salaries came to £620. Thus there was a surplus value of £1,250 produced by each worker. This is 200 per cent exploitation—a lot of workers got one-third and a few capitalist got two-thirds.

   Capitalism is a system in which the means for producing wealth are owned by a few who live by exploiting the workers, that is, by robbing them of the values they produce over and above the value of their wages.

2. It is a system of booms and slumps. From the earliest days of its existence—at the end of the eighteenth century—until today, capitalism has been marked by periodic slumps, or “economic crises” as they are called, which cause mass unemployment and untold misery for the great mass of the working people. These are very special crises. They are caused because there is too much of everything and are therefore called “crises of over-production”.

   In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that in all earlier epochs would have seemed an absurdity—the epidemic of over-production…

   Marx-Engels, Communist Manifesto

   The great world economic crisis of 1929-31, which really lasted until the beginning of the Second World War, is the yardstick for more recent crises, including the present one. At that time there were over 40 million people unemployed throughout the capitalist world. In Britain, in the autumn of 1930, the figures of registered unemployed exceeded 2,300,000 and never sank below 1 million until 1940, after the beginning of the Second World War.

Capitalist Crises of Over-Production

Capitalism is a system based on competition. There are many capitalists each producing the same kind of commodity. Each hopes to sell all that he has produced and thereby to realise a profit. He has to compete with his rivals in the attempt to sell his goods. The quantity of goods produced therefore bears no relation to the real demand. Capitalism is thus by its nature an unplanned, anarchic system. Each capitalist tries to produce as much and as cheaply as possible to grab as much of the market and as much profit as possible. To do so more effectively, to defeat their rivals, the capitalists constantly seek to cheapen production by introducing new machinery, speeding up the workers, etc. Thus more and more goods are being produced. At the same time they seek to drive down the wages of the workers to increase their share of the wealth produced.

There thus arises a constant gap between the quantity of the goods produced and the ability of the mass of consumers—in all countries, workers and peasants dependent on more or less fixed wages and small incomes—to buy them. This is the source of crises under capitalism.

So long as capitalism has existed there have always been crises of overproduction.

So long as capitalism continues to exist crises are inevitable. It is impossible to plan continuous unbroken production in the interests of the people under capitalism. Only socialism makes crisis-free production possible.

Capitalism Develops to Imperialism

So, capitalism is a system where each capitalist is faced with competition for the market from his rivals. To meet this competition each capitalist tries to produce more and more cheaply than his competitors. This results in the enlarging of the units of production as individual capitalists enlarge their plant, introduce more modern machinery, speed-up, etc. By this competition, the bigger and stronger capitalists ruin the smaller and weaker ones, and a stage arises when whole sectors of production are dominated by a few giant concerns. These are called monopolies and they are able to regulate production in their own interests, charge high monopoly prices, and maximize profits.

This is a new stage in the development of capitalism—the domination of economic life by monopolies—monopoly capitalism—and began to develop in most European countries at the end of the nineteenth century. Monopoly is the essence of imperialism, and imperialism is the highest and last stage of capitalism.

Imperialism

Competition leads to monopoly in each capitalist country. But monopoly does not eliminate competition. Within each country the big monopolies engage in fierce conflict with one another. Competition is particularly violent between the monopolies of different countries for world domination. One result is the scramble for secure, exclusive, competition-free markets, for sources of raw materials, for spheres for the most profitable investment of capital. This is found in the technically undeveloped parts of the world. These are seized and transformed into colonies, whose whole economic and political life are forcibly dominated by imperialist governments to meet the needs of the big monopolies for maximum profits.

But the world has only so many colonial areas. And by the beginning of the twentieth century the available colonies were parcelled out between a few older imperialist countries—Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal—especially Britain. The British Empire, by 1914, covered 12.7 million square miles of territory with a population of 431 million people. 3,700,000 square miles of the British Empire were acquired between 1884-1900, the period of the rise of imperialism as a new stage in the development of capitalism.

Imperialism Causes War

In this situation, developing monopoly capitalism in Germany and the USA driving outwards and eager to acquire colonies could secure them only by taking them from those powers who already had empires, that is, by war—especially from Britain.

The various powers “gang up” in combination against other groupings of imperialist powers. Thus the First World War of 1914-18 took place as a conflict between two groups of powers—one led by Britain (the Entente) and the other by Germany (the Central Powers). It was a brutal imperialist war between Britain and Germany for colonies, markets and European domination. The Second World War arose out of the drive of Hitler Germany for world domination. Today the danger of a third world war arises out of the drive of US imperialism to subjugate the entire world.

Socialist Revolution

Imperialism is not only the period of world wars. It ushers in the era of the world socialist revolution.

The workers in the imperialist countries, faced with increased exploitation, the peoples of the colonial countries, subject to even greater oppression, the people of the whole world, faced with a succession of terrible wars, awaken to the need to end imperialism. New revolutionary Marxist parties—Communist Parties—arise to head this struggle. Where these parties have the leadership of the working class and of their allies, imperialism is smashed, as was the case in Russia in 1917 after the First World War, and China after 1945. These countries take the path to socialism, which will see the ending of the exploitation of man by man.

The Class Struggle

The Class Struggle arises from Capitalism itself. It is not Imported.

Capitalism is a system in which there are different classes, exploiters and exploited, rich and poor. The interests of these two classes are clearly opposed. The exploiters try to increase the exploitation of the workers as much as possible in order to increase their profits. The exploited try to limit this exploitation and to get back as much of the wealth as possible of which they have been robbed.

This is one aspect of the class struggle which arises inevitably out of the whole character of capitalism as a class system based on exploitation.

In the fight against monopoly capitalism, the working class needs allies, and can secure them. Monopoly capitalism attacks not only the working class but threatens the interests of other sections of society, including those of the smaller capitalists—small businesses like sole traders and self employed craftsmen. The whole home and foreign policy of monopoly capital threatens the existence of the overwhelming majority of the people. This is seen particularly in the policy pursued by the Tory Government on behalf of the big monopolies. Thus monopoly capital can be isolated and the whole forces of the people organised against it. It is the task of the working class to unite around itself the majority of the nation in common struggle for peace, national independence, defence of living standards, East-West trade, etc.

The working class has to fight both immediate and long-term struggles. The immediate struggles are those that are fought out on different aspects of struggle within the existing capitalist order. Such struggles are those for wages, in defence of living standards, for peace, etc. These struggles can be victorious without a fundamental change of social system. Organisations for waging these particular struggles are established, for example, trade unions, peace organisations, old age pensioners’ organisatiops, etc.

But for a lasting solution of all these problems, working people have to end capitalism altogether and replace it by a new system of society in which the working people rule. For this purpose, the working class creates the Communist Party to draw together the most advanced and progressive sections of the working class and of other sections of the people. The Communist Party is dedicated to the task of ending the capitalist system and replacing it by a socialist system. The Communist Party participates to the full in all the immediate struggles facing the working class and its allies, for it is impossible to talk about fighting capitalism unless one takes part in all aspects of that struggle. But the special task of the Communist Party is to link the struggle on the immediate questions with the struggle to develop consciousness and understanding of the need to end the capitalist system as such and replace it by socialism.

Capitalist society gives rise to fierce class struggles which are sharpened enormously in the period of monopoly capitalism—imperialism. This period provides the most favourable possibilities for the securing of allies for the working class. Imperialism puts the task of ending capitalism on the agenda of the day. Communist Parties are created by the working class to lead this struggle. The main task of the Communist Party is to combine participation in the day-to-day struggle with the spreading of understanding of the need to end capitalism and establish socialism.

Socialism—Our Aim

Ending Exploitation

The ending of the exploitation, of cruelty and injustice caused by class society in its various forms, has long been the dream of men. It found expression in the teachings of the early Christians, in the writings of men like John Ball, Sir Thomas More, Robert Owen, the early English Chartists and the pioneers of the British Labour movement.

But so long as modern, large-scale factory production did not exist, socialism—which alone can end the exploitation of man by man—could only remain a dream. It was capitalism, in the search for greater profits, which mastered natural forces, expanded the production of goods on an enormous scale, united the scattered, individual production of men into highly developed, large-scale factory production, thus establishing the basis on which socialism can be built.

But capitalism by itself does not “evolve” into socialism. It has to be transformed into socialism by the conscious action and struggle of men. Capitalism creates the living social force which, by its very position in capitalist society, is compelled to change capitalism into socialism. This force is the working class and its allies. The age-long dream of the thinkers and the fighters of the past can only be transformed into reality when the working class, supported by its allies and led by the Communist Party, wages the struggle to take political and economic power from the capitalist class and, having succeeded in this, sets about building a socialist society.

Features of a Socialist Society

What will such a socialist society look like? How will exploitation and oppression be ended? We can get an idea of the general features of a socialist society when we examine the experience and achievements of the Soviet Union, the country where socialism was entered for the first time. Ultimately the Soviet Union failed, partly because it was harassed for its whole existence by hostile capitalism, but also through deviations from Marxism and democracy in its internal organization. But despite the problems the Societ Union faced, it did achieve much, enough to show what socialism would be like in better circumstances.

1. The first and most important feature is that political power, that is, control of the apparatus of government—of the state—is now in the hands of the majority of the people led by the working class. This means that control of the armed forces, the police, the foreign office, education, radio and television, etc, is in the hands of the working class and its allies. It is this power which makes possible the taking over of the main means of production, distribution and exchange, the transformation of the country, from capitalism to socialism, and the defence of the new socialist state from attempts to overthrow it either from inside or outside the country.

2. The means of production—the factories, mines, land, banks and transport are taken away from the monopoly capitalists. They are transformed into social property by socialist nationalization. This means that they belong to and are worked by the whole of the people, that the fruits of production likewise become social property, used to advance the standard of life of the peoples.

3. Exploitation of man by man is ended. No longer can some men—the capitalists—by virtue of the fact that they own the means of production, live off—exploit—the labour of others—the working class. No longer are the workers compelled to sell their labour power to the capitalists to live. The workers are no longer property-less proletarians. They now own the means of production and work them in their own interests and in the interests of society. For society is now composed of workers by hand and brain, that is, of an associated body of wealth producers.

   What is produced is no longer divided between the workers’ wages and the surplus taken by the capitalists. The whole of what the workers produce comes back to them in various ways. The achievements of the Soviet Union have been ignored and denigrated by western propagandists, but, its national income belonged to the working people. One part—about a quarter—went to the further expansion of socialist production and for other public needs, and the remainder—approximately three-quarters—was used for the satisfaction of the working peoples’ material and cultural requirements… This figure included wages and salaries and the income received by collective farmers. It included the money spent by the government on pensions and other forms of social maintenance, social insurance, and free education and medical services and on other cultural services and amenities.

   Since production under socialism is still insufficient to give everybody all that they need, the direct return in money—or “wages” as they are still called—is based on the individual contribution made. The distribution principle of socialism is therefore: “From each according to his ability to each according to the work done”.

   What is produced comes back in other ways as well as in wages. The whole immense system of social services—health, social insurance, pensions, education, etc—are free and non-contributory, available to all. The expenses of state administration, of defence, above all, the money for expanding socialist production—the guarantee of a constantly improved standard of living—are financed from the values created by the workers in production. All these serve the immediate and future interests of the working class.

4. Production is planned to meet the constantly rising material and cultural needs of the people. This is only possible because the means of production have been taken out of the hands of competing private owners whose only concern was to produce what was profitable, not what was needed by the people. Thus there is an end to crises, slumps and unemployment, of poverty in the midst of plenty. For what is planned is both an increase in production and in consumption by the people through increasing their purchasing power. The many price reductions in the Soviet Union since the end of the Second World War, alongside a great increase in production, are examples of how this works out in practice.

5. Socialism means the ending of the oppression of nation by nation, the end of imperialist exploitation of colonial peoples. It is impossible to build socialism on the basis of imperialist oppression—a point which right-wing Labour leaders cover up. Imperialist exploitation is the policy of monopoly capitalism and benefits it. A socialist society eliminates monopoly capitalism. There is therefore no social basis for imperialism in a socialist society. On the contrary, socialism alone ends imperialism, frees formerly backward colonial peoples, and by fraternal assistance brings them into the front ranks of industrial and social development. The development of the former colonial peoples of the Tsarist Empire since 1917 is one of the most inspiring proofs of the truth of this statement.

6. Socialism means peace. Within the country there are no longer capitalists who profit by war, who see in war the way to secure more colonies, markets and a chance to dominate the world. On the contrary, in a socialist society everyone loses by war not only in terms of personal suffering but also by the diversion of resources from socialist construction and the advance to a better life. The last war cost the Soviet people the equivalent of two Five-Year Plans—as well as 25 million dead.

7. Finally, socialism means a new, higher type of democracy—a wider, more purposeful life for all. It is the only system in which the old definition of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people” becomes a reality. Capitalist democracy is government of the people by the capitalists in the interests of the capitalists. The basis for socialist advance is the development of the initiative of the people, their enrolment in the active processes of government and social life. Without this the building of socialism is impossible. Socialism cannot be imposed on the people from above. It develops from below, from the new opportunities which socialist society provides to men and women to develop all their capacities in their own interests and in the interests of society as a whole. The great advances made against forbidding odds in the socialist countries show this.

Socialism—the First Stage of Communism

Socialism is the first stage of transition of mankind from class to fully classless society. Marx and Engels visualised Communism in two stages—socialism, the lower stage, and Communism, the higher stage. There are many differences between these two stages. The main difference is that under Communism production has been developed to such an extent that there is an abundance of goods of all kinds. Society can now advance from the watchword on which socialism is organised, that is, “From each according to his ability to each according to the work done”, to that of Communist society, which is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. This means the greatest advance in human history of all time.

Socialism for Britain

The steps necessary to advance Britain towards socialism are outlined in the Communist Party programme The British Road to socialism. On the basis of the building of an alliance of the working class and other oppressed social groups, a socialist government will be set up. Resting on the power of the majority of the people and on their continued struggle, this government will take over all the means of production at present in the hands of the monopolies and turn them into social property. Production will be planned in the interests of a continually rising standard of living for the people. The state apparatus which served capitalism will be transformed and replaced by one which serves the interests of the people. The people will begin more and more to play a decisive part in the running of their country.

A Socialist Britain will greatly strengthen the new advancing world of socialism which already exists and will speed up the final overthrow of imperialism all over the world.

The Path to Socialism in Britain

A fundamental problem of the Labour Movement is how to achieve socialism. Within the movement controversy has raged for a very long time as to the best way to do it. There are two main outlooks:

The Right-wing View

There is a powerful group in the Labour movement composed mainly of the leaders of the Labour Party and a majority at the TUC, which propagates a “right-wing” or “Social Democratic” view on achieving socialism.

It is based on the idea that the way to socialism is through capitalism and its institutions—that capitalism is transformed peacefully and gradually into socialism through the “introduction” of socialist measures by a Labour Government, for example, nationalization. The two Labour Governments of 1945-51 are held up as examples of this gradual transition to socialism. This “theory” is false and dangerous:

1. It avoids the central issue of real power—political and economic power, which under capitalism is in the hands of the capitalist class and which must be taken out of their hands if the advance to socialism is to be made. Power in the sense of a parliamentary majority must not be confused with real power. A parliamentary majority in British conditions is of importance in beginning the advance to socialism, but, by itself, it cannot bring about socialism.

   Economic power means ownership of all the means of production—the factories, mills, mines, land, banks, etc. So long as these remain in the private hands of the capitalist class, society remains capitalist society, irrespective of the character of the government in power. The workers continue to be exploited. Production continues to be production for profit. Planned production for socialism is impossible. Finally, the capitalists can use this power to sabotage and disorganise the economy.

   Political power means control of the state apparatus, which is more than Parliament. The state apparatus is the machinery of coercion and government established by every ruling class to maintain its rule over the subject classes. Essential positions in the capitalist state, in the armed forces, the police, law and the judiciary, education, media, etc, are, by careful process of selection, concentrated in the hands of trusted defenders of capitalism. Control is a powerful weapon in the hands of capitalists, used whenever their basic interests appear to be threatened by any progressive government.

2. It teaches that the state is neutral. The right-wing leaders proclaim this state apparatus is “neutral” and carries out the orders of whichever government is in power. This is a fatal and dangerous idea. Experience in the past has shown that whatever the government in power, however large its majority, the defenders of capitalism in the state apparatus are ready to use their power to thwart any move which might be disadvantageous to the capitalist class as a whole or to any individual section. This was proved in the case of the Liberal Government of 1913, which had passed a Home Rule Bill for Ireland. Landlords of big estates in Ireland and Tory imperialists were bitterly opposed to this measure. They organised a mutiny in the armed forces, called the Curragh Mutiny, and compelled the Government to withdraw the Bill.

   Experience in pre-Hitler Germany, Austria and Spain, and the present experience in the Arab states, in South America, particularly Chile and now Venezuela, where the US backed capitalists constantly harass the legitimately elected government, all emphasise the same point, that is, that control of the key positions in the state when left in the hands of capitalist supporters results in the overthrow of the elected parliamentary majority—where such a government is regarded as a menace to capitalism.

3. It confuses nationalization with socialism. The right-wing leaders assert that any economic activity by the state constitutes socialism. But capitalism often resorts to nationalization. It depends on the kind of state which does the nationalising and the kind of nationalization undertaken. In a number of countries—Germany, Canada and a number of European countries—the railways were nationalized long before the British nationalized theirs. State dockyards, arsenals, etc, have been a feature in many countries for a long time, but nobody would call them socialist measures—served a predominantly capitalist economy to benefit capitalism, not the people.

   In Britain some important industries were nationalized—coal, railways, electricity, steel. This was not socialism, for these industries serve the big monopolies, providing them with cheap steel, fuel, power, and transport at the expense of the workers in the industries and of the consumers. The nationalized industries continue to be administered by the former managers and directors with a few retired generals, admirals and old trade union leaders thrown in. The industries nationalized constituted 20 per cent of industry, 80 per cent still remained in private hands. The economic power of the capitalists is not threatened by this kind of nationalization.

4. It teaches that the working class have no need tp fight for socialism. In essence, right-wing Labour theory reduces the role of the working class in the fight for socialism to that of “voting fodder”. All the workers need to do is to vote every so often for a Labour Government in sufficient numbers. Then socialism is handed down from above, from the magnanimity of Labour politicians, even though many are careerists and opportunists looking for the chance to aggrandize themselves by serving capitalists' interests. In practice, they disarm the working class and prevent them organising and mobilising for the greatest struggle of all—the struggle for socialism.

5. It turns experience upside down. This theory is most dangerous because it flies directly in the face of the experience of the international working class. No country has achieved socialism on the basis of this theory. On the contrary, in all cases right-wing Labour Governments have been replaced either by fascists, near-fascists, or Tory Governments—Germany, Austria, Britain, Australia.

The Marxist View

1. General principles. The essence of the Marxist view of the transition to socialism is that unless political and economic power is taken out of the hands of the capitalist class and transferred into the hands of the majority of the people, led by the working class, no advance to socialism is possible.

   This means that the state apparatus is transformed into one which serves the majority of the people. The leading positions in the state—army, police, judges, etc—are taken by representatives of the people and defenders of their interests. It means, in the economic field, that monopoly capitalists’ control of the means of production is eliminated by socialist nationalization. This is the general essential content of the transition to socialism in all countries.

2. Concrete circumstances. While the essential content of socialism applies to all countries, the form in which the transition takes place varies according to the differences of time, place and the relation of class forces in the world, and in the particular country. In various places, we have seen socialism appear in several different ways, some of which were fundamentally non-violent, but turned violent by external interference, mainly from the USA and its allies, such as Korea, Chile, Cuba, Syria, Vietnam. In Britain again the form will be different. In our programme The British Road to socialism our party outlines the specific British forms of advance to socialism.

The British Road to Socialism

Only socialism can solve the problems facing the British people. The British people can only secure peace, national independence, better social provision, the end of imperialist domination over colonial peoples, when monopoly capitalism is ended. Britain can only advance and finally solve its problems when it takes the path to socialism.

Unity

The development of unity and of the immediate struggle are the foundations for the advance to socialism. The fight for socialism is not something separate from the fight for the immediate and urgent interests of the people, that is, the fight for wages, peace, social standards or national independence. On the contrary, the greater the level of activity on these issues, and above all, the greater the unity in action of the working class and its allies in the fight for these interests, the more speedy and effective will be the fight to end the Tory Government, to eliminate right-wing influence from the Labour movement.

Action in unity, now, lays the basis for the wider unity which is essential if we are to achieve a Socialist Government and to advance to socialism in Britain.

Alliance

The alliance of the majority of the people, led by the working classn is the force that can end monopoly capitalism. Monopoly capital, whose political representatives are the Tories, pursues a policy opposed to the interests of the overwhelming majority of the British people. It has tied Britain to the United States, with resulting loss of independence. The continuation of this policy threatens the British people with economic, political, military and national destruction.

The way to prevent this is to build a broad, popular alliance of the workers and their allies—the small shopkeepers, farmers, professional people, who between them constitute the large majority of the nation, and all of whom are oppressed and threatened by monopoly capital. But this alliance must be led by the working class, the class most blatantly exploited, and so with most to gain from socialism, and therefore the most determined and decisive class in capitalist society, once the capitalist propaganda veils are lifted from its vision. It is the guarantee that the outcome of the struggle will be to advance to socialism. Such an alliance would unite to defeat the Tories in a General Election and return a government which, through constant agitation and relentless pressure would begin a programme to take Britain to socialism.

The Role of Parliament

Parliament is rooted in British history. Through it, the British people have expressed their aspirations for social advance for centuries—the English Revolution founded Parliament 1640, Chartism 1840, General Election 1945. Parliament could play a positive role in the development of socialism in Britain, but it would not be a Parliament resting on a passive people whose task was ended with voting it into power. It would rest on and be impelled by a politically active people whose struggle for socialism would continue and be part of the activities of Parliament. In short, it would be a Parliament reflecting the will of the people and giving the sanction of its authority to their struggle.

The Programme of a Socialist Government

The Socialist Government, based on the continued action and struggle of the people, would lead the British people to socialism by carrying out the following programme:

1. Socialist nationalization of large-scale industry, banks, insurance companies, big distributive monopolies, and the land of the big landowners, to break the power of the billionaire monopolists, and control of foreign trade in the interests of the people
2. A planned economy based on socialist principles and aimed at rapidly improving the people’s living and working conditions, with workers by hand and brain, and their organisations, participating in planning and management at every level
3. Consolidation of the political power of the working people by ensuring that those in commanding positions in the armed forces and police, the civil service and diplomatic services are loyal to the Socialist Government and increasingly representative of the people, and by democratic electoral reform, democratic ownership of the press, and control of broadcasting by the people
4. The strengthening and extension of all democratic rights, and measures to ensure the just administration of the law
5. Recognition of the right of all subject peoples to self-determination, and the necessary measures to guarantee this
6. Making Britain strong, free and independent, with a foreign policy of peace and friendship with all nations.
   British Road to socialism.

The Decisive Role of The Communist Party

It is because monopoly capitalism—imperialism—places before the working class and the whole people the urgent task of ending capitalism that the working class creates the political weapon for accomplishing this task—the Communist Party.

Without a strong Communist Party which has the support of the decisive sections of the working class, no advance to socialism is possible. This is the experience of the working class struggle in all countries. It is in those countries where Communist Parties lead the working class that socialism either exists already or is in the stage of being achieved. In all countries where right-wing Labour leaders dominate the Labour movement, the working class has been led to defeats and the rule and power of the capitalists have been strengthened.

The Communist Party originally formed in Britain in 1920, following on the experiences of the First World War and the Russian Revolution, is a party of a new type. It differs fundamentally from the Social Democratic Parties, the parties dominated by the right-wing Labour leaders.

Differences of Theory

The Communist Parties base themselves on the theories of Marx and Engels which were developed further by Lenin and by communist countries. These theories are called Marxism-Leninism. They are drawn from the actual experiences of the working class under capitalism. Marxist theories generalise these experiences and draw scientific conclusions from them. For example, a fundamental principle of Marxism-Leninism, based on the actual experience of the working class, is the Class Struggle.

Since the dawn of class society, history has been the history of different classes struggling for political domination, for the ownership of the means of production and for the major control of the wealth produced. Marxism-Leninism asserts that the class struggle exists and is developed most sharply in capitalist society. We saw the interests of the capitalists and workers are opposed—they confront each other as exploiter and exploited. The workers can only defend and improve their conditions by struggle. Finally, that the outcome of this struggle must not be limited to the defence and, improvement of existing conditions but to the ending of the capitalist system altogether.

The right-wing Labour leaders accept capitalist theory on all decisive questions of the working class struggle for socialism. They justify profits. They deny the class character of the state and preach its neutrality. They proclaim the Parliamentary transition to socialism within the framework of capitalism. They deny the class struggle and preach the “common interests” and the “reconciliation” of classes.

Their theory is the theory of the capitalists, which they transmit to the Labour movement. The fundamental task of the Communist Party at this stage is to combat this capitalist theory and to infuse the Labour movement with the class theory of Marxism-Leninism.

Differences of Aim

The aim of the Communist Party, clearly stated in Rule 2 of its Constitution, is to achieve socialism in Britain. The aim of socialism is also to be found in the Constitution of the Labour Party and undoubtedly reflects the aspirations of the rank and file for a Socialist Britain.

But the whole practice of the right-wing leaders who dominate the Labour Party has been to strengthen capitalism and thereby to prevent the achievement of socialism.

In words, the Labour Party now stood for common ownership. In fact, the dominant right-wing leaders were able to maintain their alliance with the capitalist class, to hold back the movement in the great struggles of the twenties, leading up to the betrayal of the General Strike in 1926, the collapse of the Labour Government in the 1931 slump, and the disruption of the Labour Party by Ramsay MacDonald’s desertion to the, Tory Party.

John Gollan, Which Way for Socialists?

They supported the first imperialist war of 1914-18. They support the capitalist gulag, the European Union. They sided with reactionaries and diehards in attacking and slandering the Soviet Union, even when we owed our freedom from fascism to the Soviets” defeat of the Nazis. The two post War Labour Governments continued the policy of strengthening capitalism, and tied Britain to US imperialism. Blair kept Thatcherism alive under Labour when the country was sick of it, and subsequent Labour governments have gone from bad to worse, Brown aiding the capitalists by emptying the Treasury of our tax pounds to prop up crooked Bankers, supporting vicious Tory cuts blaming, with the Tories, the feckless working people have to service the debt.

Throughout they have weakened and disrupted the unity of the working class by attacks on the Communists, bans, splits, purges of progressive socialist activists in the Labour movement. It is therefore not surprising that the right-wing leaders today hardly speak of socialism. Instead they speak of the “Welfare State” the “Mixed Economy”, and now even Disraeli”s expression “One Nation”, falsely imagining these mean socialism.

A fundamental task of the Communist Party is to put the aim of socialism constantly before the working class, to raise its political consciousness and fighting spirit, and to inspire all aspects of working class struggle—peace, national independence, against attacks on living standards etc.—with the aim of socialism.

Organisation

1. Because right-wing Labour theory sees a parliamentary majority as a sufficient condition for socialism, its organisation is adapted mainly to electoral activity. The other aspects of working class struggle—the day-to-day fight with the capitalists over wages, working conditions, standard of living—is not regarded as the business of the Labour Party. Indeed to retain the support of capitalist backers, it sides with the Tories in condemning working class action. The “wings” of the Labour Movement are rigidly divided between the trade unions and the party, with the party concentrating overwhelmingly on electoral and parliamentary activity.

   The Communist Party is also interested in the electoral struggle in strengthening the number of fighting, militant MPs of the type in the past of William Gallacher and Phil Piratin, and today Jeremy Corbyn and John McConnell in Parliament. But it rejects the view that Parliament is the sole and decisive form of working class struggle, and emphasises the connection between the developing struggle against the capitalists on all issues and the return of a progressive, socialist parliamentary majority.

   The main body of the Labour Party is now unquestionably the Parliamentary Labour Party, and within this, of the top leaders—the members of the Government, particularly the Prime Minister when Labour is in office—due to the machinations of Blair and his advisers when in power—and of the “Shadow Cabinet” when it is in opposition.

   The Parliamentary Party has become a dictatorial party within a party with an almost presidential leader. It is a law unto itself, outside the real control of the party as such, and now independent of party conference decisions, though it commonly ignored them anyway. Glaring examples are the refusal of Gaitskell and his supporters to accept the decisions of the 1959 Labour Party conference on unilateral disarmament, and their sustained struggle to overturn them. Because the right-wing policy of the leaders comes into constant conflict with the outlook of the rank and file, discipline in the Labour Party is imposed from above, with constant bans and proscriptions from the leadership. The remaining members are content that Labour should be electable, even if all that can be elected is a Tory Party in all but name.

2. Because of the totally different outlook and the aim of the Communist Party, the form and character of its organisation is likewise different. The Communist Party does not isolate one side of the struggle—the electoral fight—as does the Labour Party. It bases itself on the need to encourage and develop all sides of the working class struggle, besides that on the electoral field. This is emphasised especially in Rule 2 of the Party Rules. It sees the working class the decisive, most advanced force for socialism in modern society, the class which is called upon to lead other sections in the struggle against monopoly capitalism.

   Communist Party organisation is based on the idea that the Communists must have contact with all sections of the people, especially the working class, and participate in all struggles, especially the struggle of the workers in large—scale industry. This is why the Communist Party gives such emphasis to factory organisation.

3. The leaders of the Communist Party do not have a conflict of outlook with the Labour Movement and the mass of the people, as does the Labour Party—that of the two trends in the Labour Party—the socialist trend of the rank and file, and the capitalist trend represented by the right-wing leaders.

   The Communist Party is a voluntary union of people who share a common outlook—Marxism-Leninism—and the common desire to work to realise its principles in life—that is, to advance to socialism in Britain. There are not two disciplines in the Communist Party as in the Labour Party, one for the leaders and one for the rank and file, but only one discipline. This is binding on all, leaders and rank and file alike.

   The system of organisation which prevails in the Communist Party and is called “democratic centralism” is the combination of centralised organisation—higher bodies, like the Executive Committee, District, Area, Factory and Area Branch Committees—with the fullest democracy from the bottom to the top. This democracy is expressed in the following:

   • all decisions are based on majority vote
   • all leading bodies are elected by the vote of the membership
   • all members are encouraged to play the fullest part in formulating Party policy.

   Rule 3 of the Party Constitution and Aims explains this process in great detail. Democratic centralism means that:

   1. All leading committees shall be elected regularly and shall report regularly to the Party organisations which have elected them.
   2. Elected higher committees shall have the right to take decisions binding on lower committees and organisations, and shall explain these decisions to them. Such decisions shall not be in conflict with decisions of the National Congress or Executive Committee.
   3. Elected higher committees shall encourage lower committees and organisations to express their views on questions of Party policy and on the carrying out of such policy.
   4. Lower committees and organisations shall carry out the decisions of higher elected committees and shall have the right to express their views, raise problems, and make suggestions to these committees.
   5. Decisions shall be made by majority vote, and minorities shall accept the decision of the majority.

   The Rights and Duties of members are dealt with in Rules 15 and 16. Members have the duty to take part in the life and activities of their Party branch and to equip themselves to take an active part in the working class movement. The rights of Party members are:

   1. To take part in their Party branch in the discussion and formation of Party policy and the carrying out of such policy, in accordance with the procedure defined in Rule 17
   2. To elect and be elected to all those leading Party Committees defined in Rule 6
   3. To address any question or statement to such leading Party Committees up to and including the Executive Committee
   4. To reserve their opinion in the event of disagreement with a decision, while at the same time carrying out that decision.

   All these features taken together constitute the Communist Party as a party of a new type, able to fulfil the role of advance guard and leader of the working class struggle for socialism. In short, the role of the Communist Party can be summed up as follows:

   1. To give the Labour movement a socialist consciousness, a scientific socialist theory, a perspective of advance to socialism
   2. To lead the workers and their allies in all the struggles which confront them—from the immediate struggles under capitalism right up to the struggles for political power and the building of socialism
   3. To provide the organisation for the vanguard of the working class and working people capable of carrying out these two tasks.

Towards Success

The building of a mass Communist Party is the key to immededlate advance and ultimate victory for those dubbed “the 1 per cent”, more precisely the ruling class of capitalists.

More and more the rank and file of the Labour Party and the trade unions are fighting the policy of the right-wing Labour leaders. More and more they are fighting for the policies originally outlined by the Communist Party. The decisive task facing the Communist Party is to build unity in action with the best elements of the Labour movement in the struggle to save Britain from aiding warfare, for national independence, and for the defence of the living conditions of the people.

This unity of the socialist forces of the working class is essential if the working class is to lead the majority of the British people against monopoly capitalism. In the course of building this unity of action, the most determined effort must be made to win understanding of the need for and role of a mass Communist Party and to increase the numbers of participants many times over. It has been the consistent struggle, propaganda, Marxist explanation and leadership of the daily struggle undertaken by the Communist Party over the years which has helped maintain a principled Left movement in the Labour Party. The stronger the CP, the stronger will be the struggle for a socialist policy in the Labour Party.

Build the Communist Party

While the task of building unity with the Left of the Labour movement is of central importance, it is no substitute for the building of a mass Communist Party. Unity itself can only be strengthened if in the course of it ever new recruits are won for the Communist Party. A mass Communist Party, based on widespread unity of action with the best socialist forces in the Labour movement, is the only guarantee that the magnificent prospect of a Socialist Britain will be realised in our lifetime.

Only the Communist Party, because it is based on Marxist-Leninist theory, can point the correct way to the working class, and link immediate struggles with the ultimate fight for socialism. The Communist Party alone has applied Marxist principles to the concrete problem of the advance to socialism in Britain in its programme The British Road to socialism.

The task of building a mass Communist Party is one of the greatest importance to the whole Labour movement. A mass Communist Party is the key which will open the door on a socialist future for the British people.

Adapted from, Our Aim is Socialism, CPGB (now CPB), 1962

 

---

The State of Israel—The First 25 Years

• Zionists Choose Palestine
• The Balfour Declaration
• Divide and Rule
• US Involvement
• US-Israel Mutual Assistance
• Relations with other Western Powers
• Israeli Aggression and Annexation
• Attacks on Syria and Lebanon
• Clearing the Pollution of Arab Inhabitation
• William Rogers Exacerbates US Lawlessness
• Zionist Millionaires
• Help for Israeli Militarization

Zionists Choose Palestine

To establish a Jewish state, territory was needed, but where? It worried the Zionists from the start, but they did not think only of Palestine. L Pinsker, a Zionist ideologist, wrote:

We do not have to settle at the very place where our statehood was crushed and wiped out… We want nothing but a tract of land that would be our property… We shall carry there the Holy of Holies rescued during the fall of our ancient homland—the concept of God and the Bible, for it was they, and not Jordan or Jerusalem, that made our mother country a holy land.

At the 6th Zionist Congress, in 1903, Theodor Herzl said the British government had offered Uganda as a Jewish state to be called New Palestine. British imperialism then aimed to use Jewish settlers for the colonial development of east Africa. Chaim Weizmann notes in his memoirs Jewish business circles approved of the plan, showing they did not care then that a new “mew national home for the Jews” would have no connexion with the “ancient homeland”. A Jewish national home could have been just as well established in Argentina, or Kenya, or on the Sinai—wherever imperialists wanted. But the rabbis were keen on Palestine, and, at the 7th Zionist Congress, in 1905, Palestine was chosen as the site of the Zionist Jewish state.

Since 1517 AD, Palestine had been part of the Ottoman Empire. Rulers of Jewish communities there had long solicited the Sultan for the land of Palestine, offering to pay a part of Turkey’s national debts, to help finance the building of a modern Turkish fleet, and to support the Sultan in international affairs. They failed. Giving up on the Sultan, they decided to suck up to the imperialist powers with an active colonial policy in the Middle East. Since then the Zionists offered their services to every colonial power, hoping to be rewarded with possession of Palestine. Not one of these imperialist powers failed to use Zionism in its colonial interests.

Before the First World War Zionist leaders relied mainly on Berlin where they were supported and financed by the banking house of Oskar Wassermann. The aggressiveness with which German imperialists were trying to get into the Middle East encouraged them more. Zionists revised their policy during the war as the prospects of a German victory dimmed with every year, pinning their hopes on Britain. Although in 1916, Berlin secured Turkey’s consent to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine under a German protectorate, it failed to sway the Zionists whose political sympathies by then were with the Entente.

The Balfour Declaration

On 2 November, 1917, Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, announced in a letter to Rothschild, the banker, that His Majesty’s government regarded with favour plans for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, and was prepared to take every measure to facilitate the attainment of that goal.

---

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's government, the following declaration of sympathy. with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status erjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Your sincerely
Arthur James Balfour

---

Jews were in a minority at that time in Palestine, vastly outnumbered by Arab Christians and Moslems.

Anticipating victory and an opportunity to seize Palestine, British imperialists were preparing to use Zionists for their colonialist aims. Soon after “the Jewish national home” was established in the Promised Land with the help of British imperialists and Rothschild’s money the Zionists began working to turn it into an independent Jewish state. To attain that goal they were ready to remain at the service of British imperialists, to become their outpost in the Middle East. Max Nordau, a Zionist leader in the 1920s, told the British:

We know what you expect of us. You want us to guard the Suez Canal, your route to India through the Middle East. All right, we are ready to fulfil that difficult mission. But you’ve got to help us to become a force capable of carrying out our duty to you.

Nahum Goldman, sometime president of the World Zionist Organization, repeatedly stressed:

The Zionists are ready to grant Great Britain the exclusive right to set up military bases in Palestine, including naval and air bases, on condition that Great Britain gives her consent to the establishment of a Jewish state on 65 percent of Palestinian territory.

A similar proposal was also made to the United States, if it would support and defend the Jewish state.

Divide and Rule

However, London did not intend to go too far in its “friendship” with the Zionists. When the war ended and Britain received the League of Nations mandate for Palestine, ministers began financially and politically sponsoring the emigration of Jews to the Promised Land, with the aim of using the principle of “divide and rule” on which British colonial management was based—that is, using systematic provocation of religious, intertribal and racial discord to maintain colonial domination. The British imperialist government was least of all motivated by their commitments to the Jews.

To apply their tested method in Palestine, the British had to take as many Jews as possible there and set them against the native Arab population, causing enmity between them. They gave every encouragement to Jewish settlers to buy land from ruined Arab landlords, whereupon lease holding peasants were driven off their plots. They gave opportunities to the settlers in trade, money lending and small scale industries. Thus the Jewish settlers had the money to set up enterprises and employ the impoverished Arabs, creating class antagonism between the exploters and the exploited, but they were interpreted and became national antagonisms between Jewish immigrants and the indigenous Arab poor deliberately created by the British. Thus British policy provoked acute enmity between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine, which grew into armed conflict.

British colonialists were quite satisfied to let Arab-Jewish enmity help them to suppress both the Jews and the Arabs. They were all the more interested in preserving such a state of affairs, since the stepped-up expansion of US capital in the Middle East and the growing influence of the pro American group among the Zionists worried the British seriously and made them anxious lest a sovereign Jewish state should become US oriented. The anxiety that the British felt turned out to be was well founded.

As the Anglo-American imperialist struggle for world supremacy grew more and more intense, the US monopolies were becoming increasingly interested in the rich Middle East which was also strategically important. Meanwhile, the Zionist leaders continued in vain to persuade Britain to let them establish a Jewish state on the territory of mandated Palestine. Their weightiest argument in favour of such a plan was their willingness to turn this state into a bulwark of the imperialists’ antisoviet policy. Ben-Gurion even proposed an agreement under which Britain would give her consent to the establishment of a Jewish state on a part of Palestinian territory, and the leaders of the new state would guarantee to make it a base of operations against Russia.

The British, however, were in no hurry to make concessions. They considered that a rapid growth of the Jewish population in Palestine would complicate continuance of their policy of balancing on the edge of an Arab-Jewish conflict, impede their resistance to the establishment of a Jewish state, and give the Americans an excuse for interfering in Palestinian affairs. Therefore, the British government began gradually to limit Jewish emigration to Palestine. Finally, in 1939 it decided, contrary to its previous commitments and in opposition to the Zionists’ efforts, to stop the resettlement of Jews in the Promised Land.

US Involvement

Back in 1919, US President Wilson had sent an unofficial mission to Palestine. On returning to Washington the mission recommended that the US government work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a state that would incorporate Palestine and the Lebanon, and that would be called United Syria. It was expected that the new state would be under American, and not British, control.

A member of the mission, William Yale, who represented the interests of Standard Oil, advanced a different plan. It envisaged the separation of Palestine from Syria and the establishment of an independent “national home” there for the Jews. He maintained that a Jewish state would inevitably be drawn under the control of US Jews who would bring into its life American ideals and American civilization, and that a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine would become a US outpost in the Middle East.

The Second World War weakened considerably Britain’s positions in the Middle East. This enabled the United States, as early as April 1941, to institute the American Palestine Committee which included 68 Senators and over 200 members of the House of Hepresentatives. The Committee openly called for the establishment of a Jewish “national home” in Palestine. In March 1944, President Roosevelt declared that the American government had always disagreed with the British policy of obstructing the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Palestine. Two months later the US Senate and the House of Hepresentatives drafted a joint resolution concerning America’s readiness to cooperate in the adoption of pertinent measures to ensure the unrestricted emigration of Jews to Palestine and to establish there a “free and democratic Jewish state”.

During the 1944 Presidential election campaign the Zionists’ demands upheld by big Jewish capitalists found their way into the campaign policy programmes of both the Republican and the Democratic parties. These demands, which concerned mostly the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state, fully accorded with the interests of US monopoly capital and, therefore, enjoyed the support of the White House.

In August 1945, President Truman requested the British government to let 100,000 Jewish emigrants into Palestine without delay. It was becoming impossible for Britain to dominate Palestine by the old methods in the face of US policy. The British government had to maintain US lease-lend to rebuild wartime damage and so had to yield to US pressure. As a consequence, in April 1947, it referred the Palestinian problem to the United Nations. In doing so, London hoped that the UN would not find a solution acceptable to both the Arabs and the Jews, and that as a result Britain would be able to consolidate her positions with regard to Palestine.

Israel Founded

On 29 November, 1947, the UN General Assembly decided, by a two thirds majority vote, that thc British mandate in Palestine should be terminated and that two independent states—Arab and Jewish—should be established on Palestinian territory.

• The Arab state, with a population of 735,000, including 10,000 Jews, was to get an area of 11,100 sq km, or 42 percent of Palestine’s territory.
• The Jewish state, with a population of 905,000, including 407,000 Arabs, was to get an area of 14,100 sq km, or 56 percent of Palestinian territory.

Two internationally administrated enclaves, Jerusalem and Bethlehem, were to be set up on the remaining two percent of the territory.

People all over the world hoped that Israel would take the road of peace and cooperation with its neighbours. Believing that this would be so and willing to respect the right of nations to self-determination, the Soviet Union also recognized the state of Israel. Zionist leaders, however, took a different road. They exploited the intense desire for independence that many Jews felt after the war, particularly immigrants from capitalist countries, to further their own political aims. They saw in the establishment of a Jewish state an opportunity to implement their far reaching expansionist plans. And so they set about turning the country into an openly militarist state pursuing a policy of annexation with the aim of creating “Greater Israel”. The Zionists made extensive use of the fact that the then reactionary Arab rulers, subservient to the imperialists, prevented the Arab people of Palestine from exercising their right to self-determination and establishing their own state on Palestinian territory in accordance with the UN decision.

To ensure their complete domination over the two prospective states, Britain and the United States provoked, in December 1947, an Arab-Jewish armed clash which grew, in early 1948, into a serious military conflict. This gave the Anglo-American imperialists the desired occasion to show “concern” and to intervene.

On 13 May, 1948, Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader, was received by President Truman and secured his consent to the immediate proclamation of a Jewish state. The Zionists were prompt. The next day was the last of the British Mandate, and that same day, the Israelis proclaimed their independence, and announced the state of Israel. Before leaving the United States, Chaim Weizmann, now President of the newly born state, again visited Truman and secured more specific promises of economic and political aid which Israel would require in the first critical months. The US President guaranteed to Israel large deliveries of arms and loans for military purposes.

The outcome of the first Israeli-Arab war, which lasted up to the summer of 1949, was that Israel seized 6,600 sq km of the area meant for the Arab state in Palestine, including a part of Jerusalem (the New City). The other part of Jerusalem (the Old City) was occupied by Jordanian troops.

Thus, the decision of the UN General Assembly was never carried out.

Israel’s territory proved almost 50 percent larger than envisaged, totalling 20,700 sq km, the Arab state in Palestine was not established, and the international enclaves, Jerusalem and Bethlehem, were never formed.

During the hostilities and Zionist terror, over 900,000 people—more than 70 percent of Palestine’s Arab population—were forced to flee from their native land and become refugees. In subsequent years, Israel persistently refused to comply with the UN resolution concerning the return of the refugees to their homelands. This gave rise to the problem of Palestinian refugees and further aggravated the tense situation. In 1948, David Ben-Gurion was asked how he would deal with the Palestinians. They would be no trouble because…

…the old will die and the new generations will forget.

It was not so easy. The Palestinians did not forget. Constant oppression is a good way of reminding people of injustice. And where were the Arabs scared from their ancestral farms to go? They filled up huge refugee camps like the Jabalia camp in Gaza which housed 35,000 displaced Arabs in about half a square mile after the Arab-Israeli war, but today has 200,000 refugees in it! The refugees had no water other than that shipped in by the UN, and had to queue to use unsanitary communal toilets. A succession of wars and uprisings followed in the years since then—the Sinai War of 1956, the Six Day War of 1967, the Yom Kippur war ending in 1974, the intifada of 1987, and a further intifada in 2006.

US-Israel Mutual Assistance

From the very outset Israel’s foreign policy was directed by Washington. The United States used Israel as a sword held over the Arab world, as a weapon for struggle against the establishment of progressive regimes in some Arab countries. Since Israel was the US strategic springboard in the Middle East, the United States was lavish in its aid and support to its Zionist prot&eaute;gé. The Tel Aviv government reciprocated by flinging wide open the door to US monopolies and military establishment.

On 13 June, 1950, the United States and Israel signed an agreement under which the US Air Force was permitted to use Israeli territory. The first loans that Israel received from the United States were used to build up the Haifa harbour, to expand the Lydda air base, and to construct strategic railways. In December 1951, May 1952 and November 1953 the two countries signed agreements on US economic aid to Israel which, in return, assumed the obligation to defend together with the United States the region of the world of which Israel is a part, and to participate in measures aimed at maintaining international security. These and a number of accompanying agreements determined the diplomatic, political, economic and military cooperation between the United States and Israel by which either side tried to profit as much as it could.

Zionist leaders cynically admit that Israel is a US outpost. The leader of the Zionist Liberal Party of Israel, S Abramov, the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reports was outspoken on this score, saying:

Israel is fighting not only to defend itself but also to defend the vital interests of the West… Israeli soldiers at the Suez Canal spare the United States the need to send its own troops to that region.

It would be wrong to think that Zionism has become the cat’s-paw of US imperialism and that the Zionists have placed their entire policy and the state of Israel at its service. They uphold US interests only as long as American imperialism supports them.

Six million Jews live in the United States, a similar number to the Jewish population of Israel. Almost half of American Jews live in New York, constituting a large proportion of its population. Neither Democratic nor Republican party can afford to ignore Jewish voters, about 75 percent of whom reside in the large cities of six states which under the two-stage electoral system of the United States provide 178 electoral votes.

Relations with other Western Powers

Although Britain recognized the state of Israel only in March 1950, it had valued Israel as a partner earlier in the struggle against the national liberation movement of the peoples of the Middle East. The Anglo-Israeli rapprochement which began in connexion with the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company by Egypt soon grew into a close alliance. France had similar motives in her sympathies towards Israel, as well as Israel’s support of French anti-Arab policy in the United Nations.

Relations between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany date from 10 September, 1952, when Israel and Federal Germany signed an agreement on reparations to Israel. Nahum Goldman, President of the World Zionist Organization, played an important role in establishing negotiations with Federal Germany, and was the man through whom the German Chancellor, Dr Adenauer, transmitted to Tel Aviv his proposal to start negotiations. After the Nazi era, Federal Germany needed respectability in the eyes of the world.

From the value of the life of a victim of Nazi genocide multiplied by the number of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis, the Zionist rulers of Israel, who had arrogated to themselves the right to speak on behalf of all Jews, agreed that the government of Federal Germany would deliver to Israel $822 million worth of commodities and extend various services over a period of 12 years. It was also agreed that Israel reserved for its citizens of Jewish nationality the right to claim individual restitution from Federal Germany. By 1965 these restitutions totalled $1,000,000,000.

Thus Federal Germany strove to achieve her moral rehabilitation, and with it to gain access to NATO membership. As for Israel, the mercenary considerations of its leaders prevailed over the moral ones. As the Israeli newspaper, Maariv, rightly noted, Zionist leaders in favour of restitutions had forgotten that German industry had made soap from their fathers' fat. The agreement on reparations and restitutions opened prospects of closer cooperation between Israel’s rulers and neo-Nazi, revanchist circles in West Germany which were then rather influential. In Federal Germany, Israel got a diplomatic supporter and a source of finance and supplies.

Israeli Aggression and Annexation

By establishing close ties with the United States and friendly relations with other imperialist countries, the Zionists could begin implementing new plans for annexation. In the summer of 1954, Moshe Dayan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, visited the United States to discuss US military aid to Israel. In August 1954, Abba Eban, Israel’s Ambassador in the United States and then Foreign Minister, began talks with the State Department about Israel’s military obligations to the United States, and US guarantees of Israel’s security. These talks lasted eighteen months.

Relying on those guarantees, Zionist fanatics decided, in early 1955, to escalate Israeli-Arab border clashes to large scale military operations. In the spring of 1956, speaking at the Knesset Ben Gurion declared that war against the Arab states was inevitable. Israel had been prepared, with the help of the United States and other imperialist powers, for a war of aggression, and in the autumn of 1956 the Zionist rulers took advantage of the joint Anglo-French action against Egypt to attack that country.

Joint Anglo-Franco-Israeli aggression against Egypt began on 29 October, 1956 following nationalization of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian government. The aggression was marked by exceptional cruelty towards the peaceful Egyptian population. The United Nations and the world progressive forces resolutely condemned the aggression. Under the pressure of world public opinion and owing to the firm stand on that question taken by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, the Zionist invaders were forced to obey the UN Security Council resolution and on 7 March, 1957 withdrew their troops from the Gaza strip.

Encouraged by the imperialist powers and actively supporting their aggressive policies in the Middle East, Israel was responsible for the mounting tension in that part of the world. In the autumn of that year, Israel was ready to take part in the armed intervention the United States had planned against Syria with the use of Turkish and Israeli armed forces. And Israel had a hand in the Anglo-American armed intervention against the Lebanon and Jordan in the summer of 1958.

While perpetrating acts of aggression and planning new annexation of Arab territory, Zionist organizations in Israel and elsewhere conducted a broad propaganda campaign to justify their actions. Addressing Israeli servicemen in October 1958, the member of the Knesset, Menachem Begin, leader of the fascistic Herut party of the most reactionary Zionist circles, said:

You are Israelites, and you should have no pangs about killing your enemy. You should have no sympathy for them until we have destroyed the so-called Arab culture. On its ruins we shall build our own civilization.

Following fascistic traditions he declared:

We shall have no opportunity for development until we have settled our territorial problems from positions of strength. We shall make the Arabs obey us completely.

Addressing students, one of the chief Zionist ideologues and former Prime Minister of Israel, Ben-Gurion, said:

The map of Israel is not the map of our homeland. We have a different map which you pupils and students of Jewish schools must put into life. The Israeli nation must expand its territory to include the area from the Euphrates to the Nile.

That this is not just a casual remark but a statement of government policy is shown by the inscription on the stone wall over the entrance to the Knesset, which read:

Jews, your homeland stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates.

The Zionist fanatics thus presented the people of Israel with the clear goal of territorial expansion. The methods of attaining this goal were spelled out by Vladimir Jabotinsky, the Zionist leader, long before the state of Israel was established:

Palestine must belong to the Jews. The use of appropriate methods for establishing a national Jewish state will be a necessary and ever present element of our policy. The Arabs already know what we must do to them and what we demand of them. We must create a situation of accomplished facts, and explain to the Arabs that they must leave our territory and get out to the desert.

The poisonous seeds of Zionist propaganda soon sprouted. They were one of the main causes of the Middle East “six day war”, Israel’s military action in 1967. The “six day war” had ended, but Israeli tanks, leaving a wake of destruction and death, had broken through to the Suez Canal, stood along the entire western bank of the Jordan and held the Golan Heights. The Zionists were faced with a new task—to retain the spoils of victory. Tel Aviv intended to compel the Arab states, victims of aggression, to agree to peace negotiations which, it hoped, would perpetuate the results of the aggression and leave Israel with its new territory, expanded at the expense of its neighbours. However, despite military setbacks, the Arab peoples did not capitulate and did not agree to negotiations while Israel held a part of their territory.

The imperialist plot against the people of the Middle East had failed. Yes, the aggressor’s troops were stationed on Arab soil, but they had failed either to overthrow the governments of Egypt and Syria, or to break the will of the Arab peoples to resist aggression.

Having attained success on the battlefield, the Zionists continued to rely on the force of arms for exerting political pressure. They began bombing and shelling the positions of Arab troops along the cease-fire line and on the border with the Lebanon, and making barbarous air raids deep into Syria, Egypt and Jordan. The brutal assault by the Israeli air force on the Jordanian village of Kufr Asad, the victims of which included old men, women and children, was but one instance of the Zionist policy of “pressuring” the intransigent Arabs. One after another such criminal air raids were made against towns and villages in the Arab countries, especially Egypt which the Zionist fanatics regarded as the chief obstacle to the implementation of their plans. In early February 1970, General Bar-Lev, the Israeli Chief of General Staff, boasted that, since the end of the “six day war”, the Israeli air force had carried out nearly 3,000 air raids over Egyptian territory.

In an attempt to provoke another war, Israel sent its bombers deeper and deeper into Arab countries and raided inhabited localities near Cairo, Damascus and Amman. There was even a commando raid carried out by Israeli paratroopers against the transformer substation in Nag Hammadi, south of Cairo. The raid was repeated in April 1969.

By late 1969, Israeli bombing and shelling were responsible for 1,200 casualties. In their speeches Zionist leaders began referring to a “permanent war”. Carried away by a burst of warlike frenzy Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, declared to the angry, indignant world that the air raids would continue until the “above stated aims were attained”. The aims of the Israeli fanatics consisted in provoking Arab retaliation to get an excuse for starting another war, but there were Israelis who continued to oppose the Zionists.

January 1970 saw more Israeli aggression, Zionist strategists stepping up the bombing of Arab territories, in contravention of the UN Security Council resolutions. On 6 February, Israeli pilots flew over thirty combat missions, raiding Tel el Kebir, the Red Sea ports of Hurghada and Safaga, and some densely populated areas. The Zionist fanatics counted on a psychological effect. They wanted to produce panic among the population, to demoralize it and force it to capitulate. It has remained their main purpose, but the Arabs are showing they are not that easily panicked.

On 12 February the world was shocked to learn about a brutal raid over a non-military enterprise, a metal-working plant, in Abu Zaabal, a suburb of Cairo. At a moment when work shifts were changing, Israeli pilots bombed and strafed the plant, killing over 80 people and wounding nearly one hundred. The air raid, absolutely senseless from the military viewpoint, was part of Israel’s psychological warfare.

In two and a half years after the “six day war”, besides the mass air raids, there were about 4,000 armed clashes on the cease-fire line between Israel and Egypt, over 3,000—on Israel’s border with Jordan, and over 300—on its border with Syria.

Attacks on Syria and Lebanon

On 8 September, 1972, numbers of Israeli Skyhawks and Phantoms raided the settlements of Palestinian refugees in Syria and the Lebanon. Flying at low level, Israeli pilots strafed women and children who rushed about panic-stricken. The air raid was repeated the next day. Ten areas in Syria and the Lebanon and one Jordanian village were bombed. In just two days there were over 400 casualties among peaceful civilians. A week later, on 16 September, Israeli mechanized and armoured units supported by aircraft invaded the Lebanon in the south. For about 36 hours the Israeli troops rampaged through captured towns and villages, and only after the arrival of a large number of Lebanese forces were they forced to retreat. Over 40 Arabs were killed and 100 wounded and 130 houses were destroyed during that raid.

Tel Aviv explained this barbarous raid as retaliation for actions by Arab extremists of the Black September terrorist organization. However, Zionist rulers did not even try to justify their next assault, on Sunday, 15 October, 1972. That day over 20 Israeli bombers attacked with bombs and rockets the suburbs of Saida, in the Lebanon, and the neighbouring villages. Simultaneously, an air strike was delivered against the city of Masyaf and its environs. In an interview with an American news agency, the Israeli command said that the raids should be regarded as an indication of Israeli’s readiness to attack whenever and wherever it wanted to.

Another demonstration of this readiness came on 30 October, 1972, when a new raid was made against several Syrian villages. The Israeli aircraft dropped many large delayed-action bombs, which made rescue operations exceedingly hazardous. According to France Press, about one hundred people were killed during the air raid. Many peasant houses and farm structures were destroyed, and many head of cattle were killed.

Before dawn on 21 February, 1973, following many instances of border violation and intrusion into the air space of Syria and the Lebanon, the Israeli aggressor landed airborne troops on Lebanese territory and attacked Palestinian refugee camps 180 km from the cease-fire line. Also on that day, Israeli fighter planes shot down a Libyan air-liner near the Suez Canal. The passengers, of whom there were over one hundred, and the crew were kiIled.

On 10 April, 1973, an Israeli terrorist group infiltrated into Beirut. They blew up several buildings and killed three of the leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and two Lebanese army officers. The terrorists kiIled or wounded 40 people. These armed clashes did not result in casualties only on the Arab side. Israeli troops also suffered considerable losses both in manpower and materiel. But this did not bother Zionist leaders too much. Recruitment among the Jewish population in the diaspora, and the sympathetic attitude of the imperialist powers ensured Israel replenishment both in manpower and weapons.

Vast sums were spent for the building of a powerful defence system along the eastern bank of the Suez Canal. The system was named the “Bar-Lev Line” after the Chief of the Israeli General Staff who directed the building of the defences. The necessary funds for all this were provided by Zionist organizations and governments of imperialist countries.

While evading a peaceful settlement with the Arab countries and preserving a “neither war, nor peace” situation in the Middle East, the Zionist rulers of Israel insist on continuing their annexationist policy “for the sake of security”. They assert that Egypt refuses to recognize Israel’s sovereignty and to let it use international waterways. In early 1971, in reply to an inquiry by Gunnar Jarring, special representative of the UN Secretary General, the Egyptian government stated that Egypt was ready to guarantee Israel’s sovereignty, provided both sides keep to the frontiers which existed prior to the Israeli aggression of June 1967, and that Egypt guarantee freedom of international shipping along the Gulf of Tiran.

Furthermore, upon the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the eastern bank of the Suez Canal, Egypt guaranteed to keep the canal open for the next six months to all ships, including Israeli ones. The Egyptian government did not object to the stationing of international control organizations at Sharm el Sheikh.

The United Arab Republic announced its acceptance of the proposal put forward by the UN special representative, Dr Gunnar Jarring, and readiness to conclude a peace agreement with Israel once the Israeli troops had withdrawn from the occupied Arab territories. The UAR has also proposed steps to resume navigation along the Suez Canal in the near future. The attitude of the Arab side provided a real basis for settling the crisis in the Middle East. The Israeli Government’s rejection of all these proposals, and Tel Aviv’s openly brazen claims to Arab lands showed who was blocking the way to peace in the Middle East, and who was to blame for the dangerous hotbed of war being maintained in that area.

Clearing the Pollution of Arab Inhabitation

At first, to make more room around the Wailing Wall, bulldozers cleared away the Arab dwellings that stood near it. But they did not stop there. Whole blocks of Arab houses were pulled down and replaced with so-called Israeli units, according to the Ministry of Housing Construction, to house 65,000 more Jews in the eastern part of Jerusalem. This was in line with the general policy of ousting Arabs from the city. Their expulsion was accompanied by barbarous destruction of historical monuments and other objects of Arab culture. Zionists, who proclaimed Jerusalem Israel’s capital back in January 1950, planned to bring the Jewish population of the city up to 900,000. Then the whole world, and not only the Arabs, will be faced with an accomplished fact—the turning of that city into the religious, administrative and political centre of the Zionist state.

Housing for Jews and agricultural settlements are being built on land from which Arabs have been driven off. As captured land is developed, some of the fortified settlements are being transformed into agricultural enterprises. Young workers would carry a carbine or a submachine gun with them to the field, emphasizing the “accomplished fact” of their intention to stay on the land.

Until the end of 1970, the Israeli government did not recommend that businessmen engage in capital construction at Sharm el Sheikh, but then it encouraged them in every way to do so. As a result, hotels, tourist camps, cafes and restaurants, car repair shops and filling stations multiplied rapidly. The invaders were also active on the Gaza strip. In just two months, July and August, in 1972, they pulled down 7,729 dwellings there, and drove 16,000 people from their homes. Several schools in the area were turned into army barracks.

In constantly encouraging Tel Aviv in its policy of aggression, the US protectors of Zionism relied on the more adventurous elements among Israel’s ruling circles. When, in December 1969, a new Cabinet was formed in Israel, three generals became its members. This was an unprecedented thing, and it had been brought off with Washington’s assistance. The three generals were Yigal Allon, former commander of Israel’s striking forces, Moshe Dayan, Minister of Defence, and Ezer Weizmann, the founder of the Israeli air force. Together with two militant nationalists, Menachem Begin and Shimon Peres, they formed an extreme Right group in the government, on which Prime Minister, Golda Meir, relied for support. It is noteworthy that as soon as the names of the new Cabinet members became known many political commentators abroad dubbed it a “War Cabinet”.

William Rogers Exacerbates US Lawlessness

When the Cabinet was being formed, Israeli Zionists took their instructions from the speech of William Rogers, US Secretary of State, at a conference of educators in Washington. At a time when candidates for ministerial posts and the government’s future policies were dicussed in Tel Aviv, Rogers declared that before it became possible to begin solving the problem of Israeli troop withdrawal from occupied territories, the Arab countries had to convince Israel that they desired a lasting peace in the Middle East. According to the State Secretary’s logic, the victim of aggression had to convince the aggressor of his peaceableness. This was unprecedented in world diplomacy and international law practice. Moreover, Rogers declared that Jerusalem must become a unified city, which conflicted with the UN General Assembly resolution on restoring the city’s prewar status. Equally revealing was his avoidance of the question of the occupied regions of Syria and Jordan, and the Palestinian refugees problem.

In Tel Aviv, Rogers’ speech was taken as a direct incitement to anti-Arab actions and consequently as instructions on how to select candidates to ministerial posts. The ability to follow Washington’s recommendations, especially with regard to the composition of the Israeli government, proved to be dependent on the size of US aid to Tel Aviv. Such influential Zionist leaders in the United States as Senator Jacob Javits and Max Fisher, special consultant to the White House, were systematically pressing the US government for new deliveries of Phantom and Skyhawk aircraft, tanks, missiles and electronic equipment to Israel. Active indeed were Zionist lobbyists in Congress where they conduct a carefully planned political campaign of persuading the government to unequivocally support Israel. Nothing changes.

Zionist Millionaires

The Israeli authorities demonstratively held Zionist conferences in Jerusalem. Some of these were the international conferences of Jewish millionaires, which demonstrated the support given the Israeli fanatics’ expansionist policy by the Zionist financial magnates of the world.

The international ties of Zionist financiers enable them to coordinate financial aid extended to the Israeli military by US millionaires and their opposite numbers in other countries. The participants in the three “conferences of millionaires” held in Israel after the “six day war” included:

• the British and French Rothschilds
• Charles Clore, the chairman or a director of 14 companies and banks in England
• Zigmund Warburg, a prominent London banker
• Isaak Wolfson, owner of large department stores in England
• Israel Calbin, the chairman or a director of 116 banks and companies in Brazil.

When it came to meeting Zionism’s needs, they all quickly and easily came to terms. The first of these conferences met in August 1967. It was attended by 60 Zionist capitalists, including 38 delegates from the United States. They approved Israel’s acts of aggression, and expressed readiness to advance the required sums immediately.

The second and more representative conference was convened in April 1968. It was attended by 500 important businessmen and 300 economic advisors. A discussion of the aggressor’s needs took place. At Wolfson’s suggestion, it was decided to set up a big Israeli insurance company. The conference also settled the problem of financing the construction of an oil pipeline from Elath, a port in the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea, to the port of Ashod on the Mediterranean coast of Israel. The West German firms Thyssen and Mannesmann undertook to supply the steel for the pipeline.

A third conference of Zionist financial tycoons met in June 1969. Its delegates included 300 bankers, industrialists and businessmen. The conference was keynoted by openly expansionist plans. Besides the next allocation for armament, the delegates discussed capital investment in occupied Arab territories, particularly in the Gaza strip and in western Jordan. For “security reasons” the details of the new Israeli plans, which required large sums, were kept secret and not discussed at the conference. However, the Israeli Minister of Finance assured the delegates that their capital investments were absolutely safe, no matter what turn events in the Middle East might take.

Besides foreign investments, loans and credits, donations by Zionists play an important part in Israel’s economy. In less than a quarter of a century they turned Israel from a sparsely populated, economically backward country into a developed, industrial state. Without all this financial and economic assistance the Zionist offspring would have long gone bankrupt unable to cope with the material difficulties generated by its adventuristic policy and the continual wars it wages. In 1970 alone, Israel received, in various forms of payment and various currencies, almost 500,000,000 dollars, which nearly halved its balance of payments deficit.

The Zionists have a wide network of organizations which levy “taxes on the Diaspora”. The chief of them is the Jewish Agency with its centre in Jerusalem. The banking operations in transferring the money collected are in the charge of Keren Ha Yesod (Palestine Foundation Fund), an organization which is subordinate to the Jewish Agency and which has branches in 34 countries.

About 80 percent of its monetary gifts and credits Israel receives from the United States with its Jewish population of six million. In no other Jewish community do Zionists collect money on such a scale and with such proficiency as in the United States. The United Jewish Appeal, the US branch of Keren Ha Yesod, had its offices on the 29th floor of the Sperry Rand Building. It employed a large staff of paid and voluntary fund raisers. The UJA offices maintain direct teletype contact with nearly 300 Jewish communities in the United States. Golda Meir’s visit to the United States as long ago as 1973 netted Israel a free grant of $50,000,000. Now it is billions.

Zionist organizations in other capitalist countries are just as ready to fleece Jews. They are active in France. Once Rothschild, the French millionaire, appealed to the half-a-million French Jews to donate 10 percent of their incomes to Israel.

In Britain, the English branch of the Rothschild banking dynasty and other Zionist capitalists aid Israel with large sums. Possessing vast funds, Zionist organizations in Britain are able to press for donations through advertisements published not only in their own press but also in newspapers belonging to English capitalists.

By extensive fund-raising, steady streams of money flowed into Tel Aviv from over 50 of the main countries of the world. The total sum of donations which Zionists collected from the diaspora in the first 22 years from the establishment of Israel was over four billion dollars. Zionist leaders joked they had bred a fund raising cross between a cow and a giraffe—it feeds abroad but gives its yield in Israel.

Proceeding from the maxim that money does not smell, Zionists are not averse to collecting from known gangsters, owners of gambling houses and other dens of iniquity. In early 1971, the Israeli press jubilantly reported that Meir Lansky, a 69 year old gang leader, had become a citizen of Israel.

Lansky’s application for citizenship was prompted not only by his desire to avail himself of the advantages which the state conceived by Theodor Herzl offers to a rich man. It was also due to the fact that Lansky’s activities had attracted the attention of the American public to such an extent that even the eminently bribable US police could not easily overlook them. Fearing exposure and scandal, the aged gangster decided to take refuge in Israel, since he had repeatedly rendered invaluable services to the Zionists and shared his unsavory profits with them.

Lansky’s calculations were accurate. Both Israeli and American Zionist leaders, at whose requests he and his men had terrorized those who opposed the racialist ideology of Zionism and national discord in the United States, could not ignore the fact that the inveterate criminal possessed compromising documents and receipts signed by Zionist fund raisers to whom he contributed regularly. Thus, Zionists were bound to hold the gates to the Holy Land wide open for Lansky and his capital.

Further Help for Israeli Militarization

However great the services done for Israel by international Zionist organizations or the collected donations, they would have not been sufficient in themselves to enable Israel to carry on its adventuristic policy of aggression and plunder fo so many years. It was made possible by the imperialist countries which brought Israel into the world and have supported it ever since.

Already by 1973, according to US press sources, Israel had a regular army of 80,000 consisting of 20 brigades and equipped with 1,200 tanks, 300 self-propelled guns (105mm and 155mm calibre), 1,500 armoured cars and personnel carriers, and other equipment. The Israeli air force numbered 500 combat planes, including Mirage, Phantom and Skyhawk aircraft. During that year the force was expanded with burgeoning deliveries from the United States.

The draft age for men in Israel was from 18 to 29 years. There were also unmarried women aged 18 to 26, serving in the guard units, headquarters and logistical units of the Israeli army. Women’s detachments were guarding the government and the diplomatic corps. The Israeli armed forces personnel included 3,500 mercenary soldiers from 12 countries—mostly from the United States, Britain, Canada, South Africa and Australia—who have not become naturalized, and 10,000 Jews with dual citizenship—Israeli and of the country whence they came.

Golda Meir reported after her visit to Washington in the spring of 1973 that the United States showed a better understanding of Israel’s position than ever before. Evidence of this were the new credits and loans to Israel to the tune of $515,000,000, $300,000,000 of which was earmarked for the purchase of 48 Phantom aircraft, dozens of motor boats, a number of Skyhawks, laser beam guided bombs, and other modern fighting equipment. Tel Aviv allocates $100,000,000 for “housing construction”, which means for the “development” of occupied Arab territories. By this means, US tax dollars are converted into profits for US arms manufacturers

Although in connexion with the “six day war” Bonn announced its strict neutrality, Federal Germany never stopped aiding the aggressor. The Israeli Ambassador in Bonn, Asher Ben-Nathan, and State Secretary Lar of the West German Ministry for Foreign Affairs signed a contract on the granting of a 160,000,000 mark credit to Israel to cover a period of 25 years. In addition, the Deutsche Bank, a large West German bank, shared in the banking credit extended to Tel Aviv by an international banking consortium of seven countries to the amount of 15,000,000 marks.

Together with Israel, Federal Germany was conducting research on the use of atomic energy for military purposes. Over 70 West German physicists were involved in this work which was conducted by the Weizmann Institute and financed, among others, by the Fritz Thyssen and Volkswagen foundations.

The first official visit of an Israeli government delegation to Bonn took place in February 1970. The delegation was headed by Foreign Minister Eban. The talks which the delegation had with the West German President, the Chancellor, and the Foreign Minister were strictly confidential.

Besides Federal Germany, Eban visited Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg where he met with representatives of local Zionist organizations and urged them to intensify the raising of funds for Israel. In Brussels, he had a talk with representatives of the European Economic Community during which he discussed cooperation between Israel and the Common Market countries. Zionist organizations in these countries acted as mediators in negotiating an agreement between the European Economic Community and Israel, in which the latter is vitally interested.

The conflict in the Middle East in October 1973 giving rise to tension in international situation was caused by Israel’s seizure of Arab territory and her stubborn unwillingness to fulfil the Security Council resolution of 22 November, 1967 and withdraw her troops from the occupied Arab lands. Military actions took place on Egyptian and Syrian land, and nobody can question the right of the Arab peoples to fight for the liberation of this land. While defending this right the Arab peoples are for normalization of the situation in the Middle East which would create the conditions for extending the detente to this area.

---

• I Abuelaish, I Shall Not Hate, 2011
• R Brodsky, The Truth about Zionism, 1974
• S Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, 2009