Sovinform

On the 1947 Soviet Vote in the UN regarding Palestine’s Partition 👆

On the 1947 Soviet Vote in the UN regarding Palestine’s Partition Saed Teymuri In the 1940s, the British Empire and the Zionist mainstream posed »no longer« as allies but as vehement »foes.« Behind the scenes, however, British imperialism continued its alliance with the Zionist leadership. The presence of the British military in Palestine served as reinforcements to the MI6 agent Ben-​Gurion and his hangmen in the Haganah army leadership. It thus follows that the removal of the British troops from Palestine was the removal of the reinforcements to the Haganah, thereupon weakening the Israeli military force responsible for the Nakba. The Nakba came not greatly much due to the partition and demarcations made on the map but many times more so due to the immense military strength of the Hebrew and Arab reaction, the Haganah-​Irgun forces in Israel and the Mufti’s Arab SS troops in Palestine — the removal of the British reinforcers of the reactionary armed forces was most righteously prioritized by the socialist forces. In the UN, along with struggling for the removal of the British imperialists from Palestine, the USSR also pushed for the non-​partition and sought to ensure a territorially-​integral bi-​ethnic democratic state of Palestine in which Israelis and Arabs could have equal rights. Under the influence of American imperialists, the Soviet proposal for the bi-​ethnic statehood and territorial integrity of Palestine was turned down and the UN resolution put forward tied as a »package deal« the removal of the British troops to the partition of Palestine. Rightly prioritizing the removal of the British reinforcers of the Haganah, and hence rightly prioritizing the weakening of Ben-Gurion’s army even at the cost of official partition of Palestine, the USSR voted for this resolution. Subsequently, US intelligence confirmed, USSR made no steps for enforcing the partition-​related excerpts of the UN resolution but every step for enforcing the excerpts concerning the removal of UK troops. Read more in MagMa: https://magma-magazin.su/2024/04/saed-teymuri/on-the-1947-soviet-vote-in-the-un-regarding-palestines-partition/

How the Bolshevik support for Secessionism in the Russian Empire maximized the Territorial Reach & Integrity of the Soviet Union Loyal to the parasitic class enemies of the proletariat, the Tsarist White Guards worked actively for the territorial integrity of the Russian Empire and for the partition of the USSR. Destroying these White Guard promoters of anti-Soviet separatism required a Soviet alliance with the anti-colonial separatists combatting the White Guards. The anti-colonial separatists, with their class interests aligned with those of the proletariat, naturally chose to merge their forces with the Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat. Click here for link.

Part 1 of a series on the 1947 Soviet vote in the UN regarding Israel and Palestine.

On the Fakeness of British Imperialism’s »Hostility« to the Zionist Project: Why expelling British troops from Palestine was more important than the partition question Saed Teymuri This article is the first in a three-​part series on the background to the Soviet Union’s vote on the partition of Palestine. Part two covers the history of the Soviet vote in the UN. Part three treats the Soviet and Middle Eastern opposition to the Bernadotte Plan. Key for understanding the Soviet vote on the fate of Palestine in 1947 is the relationship between the British Empire and the Zionist movement. Despite the 1914 Balfour Declaration which openly supported the Zionist cause, the United Kingdom nonetheless came to regard its alliance with the Hashemite Jordanian regime no less significant and thus, to make the Jordanian monarchy appear in Arab public eyes as »no longer« in cahoots with the British backers of the Zionist forces, made a stand ostensibly »against« Jewish migration to Palestine. The powerful kibbutz lobby in Israel, hand in hand with the Hebrew proletariat of the Histadrut, picked upon Britain’s ostensible »anti-​Zionism« and forced the MI6-​backed gang of Ben-​Gurion to partially mobilize the Zionist movement against the British. Nevertheless, the British imperialists remained as covert allies to Zionism. This fact is testified not only by the assistance of various British agents to the Haganah but also by the fact that Britain was a closest ally of American imperialism, by then the supreme sponsor of the Zionist movement. Hence, despite the overt-​level »hostilities« between Ben-Gurion’s group and the British imperialists, the two forces remained as covert allies. Such an overt-​level »hostility« between Zionism and British imperialism at the time was to be weaponized by the socialist forces for deepening the wedge between Britain and its Zionist covert allies and to expel the British imperialists from Palestine. Read more in MagMa: https://magma-magazin.su/2024/04/saed-teymuri/on-the-fakeness-of-british-imperialisms-hostility-to-the-zionist-project/

The Invitation Offensive -- A Popular-Frontist Strategy and Tactic of Undermining Fake 'Anti-Fascist' Opposition Cases occur in which during a struggle against imperialism or fascism, some organizations that collaborate with the imperialist/fascist foes pretend to be struggling against it, so to mislead otherwise genuine anti-imperialists/anti-fascists. In their struggle against imperialism and fascism, the communists can expose such organizations by what I call "alliance offensives" or “invitation offensives.” It entails exposing collaborationists through proposing an overt alliance with them. That is, the communists would propose an alliance to this organization for a joint struggle against the imperialist/fascist occupation. Owing to their collaborationist nature, the collaborationists would not benefit from establishing friendly contacts with the communists for that might expose their collaboration with the enemy. As such, it puts the covert collaborationists into a difficult position: (1) If they reject the proposal, they would lose face in front of the public by appearing not serious about combating the enemy occupation. By contrast, the communists would rightly appear serious in combating the enemy occupation. This would tilt the balance more so towards the communists and would expose to many the collaborationist nature of the organization. It would draw many of the genuinely anti-imperialist/anti-fascist supporters of the covert collaborationist organization away from the collaborationists and towards the communist-led popular front. (2) If the collaborationist organization accepts the alliance proposal, then they would face two options: (1) break their word/promise/deal and thus risk being exposed as collaborationists. Exposure would have almost the same results as rejecting an invitation in the first place, except it would be more intensively in favor of communists and a more intensive blow at the collaborationists. Option (2) would be that they would actually go through with the deal, carry out their promises, which would indeed harm the imperialist/fascist enemy occupation. This would force the collaborationists into fighting their own imperialist/fascist bosses hence causing division and friction in the enemy camp. All of these cases are wins for the communist-led popular front and losses for imperialism/fascism and collaborationism. In order to render it harder for the collaborationists to betray their deal, communists shall try to negotiate as precondition, some degree of transparency on the part the collaborationist organization, so that it would become easier for communists to gather intelligence on the collaborationists’ potential betrayals of the deal, so to expose the collaborationists’ betrayal of the deal more easily. The establishment of transparency measures would be useful in dissuading the collaborationists from betraying their deal in the first place. Related to this strategy is the "invitation offensive" strategy. Socialist and anti-imperialist states can expose imperialists' Wilsonian hypocrisy by calling for universal disarmament. No one with a basic understanding of class struggles would ever seriously think that universal disarmaments are realistic in the epoch of modern imperialist warmongers. The point though is to show that contrary to their Wilsonian calls for peace and unity, the imperialists are but hypocrites committed to terror. The USSR, the Peoples' Democracies, and the Comintern frequently used the peace offensives strategy.

Stalin intervenes against the dogmatic imposition of “materialism” on the scientific process, pushes for Freedom of Speech in scientific inquiry Genetics was not banned. Stalin’s intervention helped other scientists raise criticism of Lysenko. Zhdanov’s statement on the universe did not rule out the possibility of the Big Bang. Click here for link.

In the Dungeons of Tito’s Regime: The Titoist occupiers of Yugoslavia enslave, torture, and murder tens of thousands of Yugoslav communists, progressives, and patriots Tito’s gang hires Gestapo experts for anti-communist crackdown. ‘Self-managed’ slave camps were established. Citizens of the Peoples’ Democracies were kidnapped through cross-border operations and sent to torture camps. Click here for link.

The Structure of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Why Party rule is necessary for Proletarian rule and for Cutting Bureaucracy and Corruption. Click here for link.