Many of those who support the Palestinian people and repudiate the Israeli crimes are against the need to destroy the State of Israel. They declare that there are two different nations (Palestinians and Jews) and therefore there should be two independent states. The IWL-FI is opposed to this proposal.

 We assert that the only solution is the old OLP demand: the creation of a lay, democratic and non-racist Palestine in which Arabs and Jews can cohabit peacefully. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to destroy the State of Israel, main cause of conflict.

 

The proposal of the “two states” stems out of two errors: a) that there are two nations with equivalent historic rights, b) they do not take into account the true essence of the State of Israel, a real military enclave of imperialism raised against the Arabic people, and c) they ignore that an “independent” Palestine state is not viable under current conditions.

 

Two nations?

 

The existence of two nations “with equivalent rights” in Palestine is as good as faking history. In 1918, 3 out of every 4 inhabitants were Arabs. The Jews possessed barely 5% of the land and did not aspire to any state of their own. The ages-long cohabitation was absolutely peaceful.

It was Zionism, a European Jewish trend founded by Theodore Hertz in the late XIX century, who began to raise the alleged biblical right of the Jews to Palestine with the intention of founding “the national motherland of Israel” oblivious to the fact that there was an Arabic nation inhabiting that land for centuries. With the support of rich European Jewish families and segments of imperialism, Zionism encouraged migration of Jews to Palestine, financed the purchase of land and created armed “pressure” groups. In 1947, Jews were 40% of the population.

 

Creation of Israel

In 1947, based on the theory of the “two nations” UNO created the State of Israel and, encouraged by imperialism in agreement with Stalinism, granted it the ownership of 55% of Palestine legalising the usurpation of the Palestinian rights. With the alleged intention of giving some room to the long-suffering Jewish refugees from II World War, they created an imperialist enclave against the recently emerging wave of Arabic anti imperialism in the midst of a region that was strategic due to its oil reserves. In 1948, Zionist armed organisations invaded part of the territory meant for the Palestinians and grabbed hold of further 20%. In the village Der Yasn, for example, they murdered 254 out of its 700 inhabitants. In this way, they expelled over 800 000 Palestinians – a third of the population and originated the drama of the refugees. Palestinians had to make do with the eastern part of Jerusalem, Gaza and East Bank. These territories were to be occupied directly by Israel in 1967. To defend the coexistence of the state of Israel actually means to admit that history of armed usurpation.

 

A racist state

 

Zionist racism is clearly manifested in the laws that define Israel as “a Jewish state”. The “law of return” establishes that any Jew established in Israel has a right to citizenship regardless the part of the world he was born in. Million of Jews have managed this citizenship in this way while the non Jews have no rights even if they were born of Israeli territory as is the case of many Palestinians. Any trend that intends to change this character of the state is banned from taking part in the elections. The racist legislation is completed with the property of farming lands: the non-Jews are not allowed to buy it and this is clearly aimed at preventing Arabs from buying it. This legislation is similar to the South African Apartheid or other laws of the Nazi Germany. To accept the existence of a Zionist state, therefore, means giving support to its racist essence.

 

A gendarme state

 

Israel is the fifth military power on earth. Their fire power (combat airplanes, missiles, helicopters, tanks and over 200 nuclear heads is several times that of any other country – including USA – if we consider the per capita rate. Apart from that, it is one of the greatest weapon manufacturers and one of the main exporters. This military power is clearly financed by the USA (sending billions of dollars each year for that purpose) and the EU who buy 80% of their weapon export.

 

An old argument has it that Israel had to arm itself because it is surrounded by “enemy Arabic countries”. The excuse is not valid: since 1973 no Arabic country has ever attacked Israel, but they get increasingly armed. Actually, their military power is aimed primarily at the Palestinian people and, secondly, it is a constant threat to combatant Arabic nations as was evidenced with the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 or the missiles attacks against Iraq in 1991. The existence of Israel is, basically, as an “armed fortress of imperialism”.

 

What Palestinian state?

 

Israel possesses 78% of the territory and – by means of the “unilateral separation” is planning to control 85%. In such condition an “independent Palestinian state is not viable: having the shape of islands with no communication with each other and with no economic base for Israel has appropriated the best land and the best water supplies of the Eastern Bank. Palestinian émigrés would actually be banned from returning home, for most of their land has been impounded by Israel and there is no real chance for them to settle in Gaza or on the Eastern Bank. The “1967 frontiers” would not change much in this situation.

 

Neither would the 1947 division sanctioned by the UNO prove to be a solution. Let us leave aside for a moment the fact that this would legalise the Zionist usurpation. Today about 9.5 million people live in Palestine (53% Jew and 47% Arabs). If we add the Palestinian émigrés, we would reach 5 million Jews and 8.5 Arabs. Would the Zionist allow a proportional division of territory and of productive land? Reality suggests that the answer would be negative. In other words: any relatively rational alternative for the “two states” would need the defeat of Israel. But because of the racist essence of the Zionist state as the imperialist military enclave, as soon as they had a chance, they would try and retrieve whatever they may have lost and so the conflict will spurt out again.

 

The policy of the “two states” appears therefore as a “left-wing variety” of the proposals posed by imperialism. In the same way as it was necessary to destroy the state of apartheid to achieve peace in South Africa, or to rout the nazi state in Europe during the II World War, no matter how hard we may try, there will be no peace in the Middle East if the State of Israel is not destroyed. Can a lay, democratic and non-racist Palestine exist and be inhabited by Arabs and Jews? Historic experience proves that, once Zionism is defeated, this is the only possible alternative.