SHARE

The revolution that shakes the Arab countries replaced the latest main headlines in the media, namely  a series of events about the “peace talks” aiming at the so-called “two-state solution” between the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas, and the Israeli government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Among these events it is included Abbas’ decision to launch an offensive at the UN, demanding that the Security Council and General Assembly recognize the Palestinian state. This policy was accompanied by the decision of many South American countries – Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile and Venezuela – and the Mercosur to recognize the Palestinian state and to follow UN initiative, clearly emboldened by Obama.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was reluctant to sign the agreement establishing the Palestinian State. He justifies his refusal by saying that Abbas is not really willing to negotiate and to make concessions seriously.

With his offensive in the UN, Abbas’ intention was to appear before the world facing “Israeli intransigence” and as the true defender of Palestinian people interests and rights. This should also serve to show “achievements” of his government to the Palestinians at a time when there is strong discontent with his government, when many Palestinians are seriously questioning his government and when, within the West Bank, we see the growth of Islamic forces that reject any compromise with the Zionists.

But this questioning has grown exponentially when secret documents about the negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel were unfolded in late January. These secret documents expose as never before the role of imperialist agent of the Palestinian Authority and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas.

The imperialist strategy key part

It is important to remember that the “peace talks” and the “the two States solution” are inscribed on the policy pursued by U.S. imperialism since the mid-seventies under President Jimmy Carter and that the IWL (International Workers League) calls it “democratic reaction”. After the defeat in the Vietnam War and acknowledging being incapable to develop large-scale military intervention, imperialism seeks to contain the processes of mass resistance to oppression and exploitation, and especially prevent the revolutionary disruptions by co-opting, buying and corrupting these movements’ leaders to accept being the defenders of the imperialism interests.

The first spectacular triumph of that policy was the Camp David accords (1979), in which President Anwar El-Sadat of Egypt – a country that until then headed the resistance of the Arab bourgeoisies in the region against Israel – agreed to recognize the Zionist state. Sadat called for all Arab states to recognize Israel. He also called on Palestinians to lay down the destruction of the Zionist stateflag, and, instead, to recognize Israel and negotiate the peace.

After El-Sadat assassination in 1981 by Muslim officers of the Egyptian army, Hosni Mubarak succeeded him and maintained the same policy. In return for this betrayal, the Egyptian government received constant military and economic aid from the United States (estimated at 40 billion dollars).

As part of the agreement, Israel returned to Egypt the occupied territories in the Six Day War in the Sinai desert. In exchange, Israel obtained the commitment that Egypt would help “control” the Palestinians in Gaza. The sinister role of the Egyptian regime can be seen, among other things, in the collaboration with Israel in the genocidal blockade on Gaza.

As from these agreements, no Arab state has returned to confront Israel militarily. But Israel has never stopped attacking countries that refused to make deals: attacked and destroyed the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981, invaded Lebanon in 1982 and held the occupation until 2000, and returned to invade it in 2006. The difference is that the resistance came not from the States, but from organizations that assumed the role of resistance and defeated Israel in spite of their governments’ complicity and betrayal.

As to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), headed by Yasser Arafat, strongly dependent on the Egyptian government and other Arab countries for its funding, its direction turns, in the 1980s, to the covenant with Israel culminating in the Oslo Agreements of 1993. This agreement formalizes the “two states” solution, even though by that time it had already beendone if we take into account the theft of Palestinians territory and their expulsion from their lands perpetrated by Zionism, supported by imperialism and Stalinism through mutual agreement in 1948 with the UN resolution on the “division” of Palestine.

Currently, only Islamic organizations continue to confront this policy, some linked to the government of Iranian ayatollahs, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and in the West Bank, and Hamas, which now governs the Gaza Strip and has historic links with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

Abbas accepts that Palestinian borders are controlled by NATO!

In late January, the news agency and television station Al Jazeera, along with the British newspaper The Guardian – linked to the British Labour Party – released, on the best of WikiLeaks style, around 1,300 classified documents – currently known as the Palestinian Papers – containing descriptions and comments made by Palestinian representatives in the negotiations conducted between 1999 and 2010 around the plane of the “two states” solution.  These comments warns that Abbas is willing not only to recognize Israel, denying the right of refugees to return to their lands, but also to make huge concessions in his own territory, which belongs to the Palestinian people. Abbas also accepts that the West Bank and Gaza remain separated by Israeli territory, that Zionist enclaves presently separating Palestinian towns are kept, the nearly unlimited control of Israel over Jerusalem, etc. And all this was negotiated in secret without the knowledge of the Palestinian people.

In the “Palestinian Papers” it is clear the role of the Egyptian government, represented in the negotiations by Omar Suleiman, recently appointed vice president by Mubarak. This role was to press the Palestinians to accept all Yankees and Israelis demands.

The so called “security” issue clearly shows the true meaning of the “two states” agreement.  The New York Times published on February 7 an extensive article by Bernard Avishai, an Israeli author, based on papers published by Al Jazeera and on his own interviews with former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, with Mahmoud Abbas and with other representatives of both parties:

“Olmert’s security principles were the following: Palestine would have a strong police force, “everything needed for law enforcement.” It would have no army or air force. The Palestinian border with Jordan, through which missiles and heavy armaments might be smuggled, would be patrolled by international forces, probably from NATO. There would be a procedural guarantee that no foreign army would be able to enter Palestine, and its government would not be permitted to enter into any military agreement with a country that does not recognize Israel. Israel, for its part, would have the right to defend itself beyond the borders of a Palestinian state — say, against land forces massing on the eastern side of the Jordan River. Israel expected to reserve the right to pursue terrorists across the new borders. Israel would be allowed access to airspace over Palestine, and the Israel Defense Forces would have rights to disproportionate use of telecommunications spectrum (though commercial rights would be equalized under international law) (…)Abbas further offered Olmert his choice of international forces to patrol the border with Jordan, and he even said that he had consulted the Americans, who agreed to participating in a NATO force as long as it was under American command. Jordan and Egypt, whose borders were implicated, made some conditions of their own: no Jordanian or Egyptian would participate in the force, and it would be based only on Palestine’s side. ‘The file on security was closed,’ Abbas told me. ‘We do not claim it was an agreement, but the file was finalized.’”

The agreement of “two states” means legalizing the presence of an imperialist military occupation in the heart of the Middle East, the Intifada nerve center. Obama’s government will be willing to put pressure for such an agreement is signed!

If it is a lie that Abbas is not willing to make “serious concessions” why does not Israel accept the agreement? Like all counter-revolutionary regime of fascist characteristics – we qualify it as a Nazi regime, because, like the Hitler regime, it is based on an attack on a people, the Arab one, for racist reasons – Israel must always stay on the warpath. This includes not only that its forces are on “red alert” permanently, but also encourage gangs whose members are willing to take more and more settlements, to attack the Palestinians, and to ally with the political parties that group them .

These parties are part of Israel’s ruling coalition and threaten to topple the government if the Government agrees to dismantle or to prevent the extension of the Zionist settlements in the West Bank or recognizes Gaza as part of an “independent” Palestinian state.

All this demonstrates that it is impossible a “peaceful coexistence” of a Palestinian state with Israel. In any case, if the U.S. decided to impose the agreement at any cost, the supposed “Palestinian State” would undergo militarily in a situation worse than it is today. With the operation of ‘two states’ theonly goal is to increase the imperialist military control over the Palestinian rebellion through negotiation.

Given this, the only way out continues to be the destruction of the Zionist-Nazi monster that is Israel and the construction of a secular Palestinian state, democratic and non-racist in the entire territory of Palestine.