The Zionist attack against the international resistance to the New World Order and the Libertarian Left, TAKIS FOTOPOULOS, The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 6, No. 2/3 (Spring/Summer 2010)

The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 6, No. 2/3 (Spring/Summer 2010)

TAKIS FOTOPOULOS

Zionism the ultimate cause of the new crime

The despicable crime of fully-armed and dastard murderers in the service of the criminal Zionist regime, who attacked unarmed international activists on the Mavi Marmara in international waters, is now well established. Furthermore, the fact that these criminal soldiers began shooting even before landing from helicopters and carried out effective executions in cold blood has now been confirmed by eye witness accounts and forensic evidence[1]. And, of course, it is ridiculous even to discuss seriously the feckless Zionist accounts of the supposed self-defence stance its soldiers “had” to use, as only Goebbelian minds could argue that the right of self-defence belongs to the murderous attackers and not to the victims of such a brazen attack!

However, this latest Zionist crime is neither new nor unexpected. From the moment Zionism, effectively a criminal ideology, began to materialize (following the establishment of the Zionist movement at the end of the 19th century and the recognition of Palestine as the “Promised Land” by the super power of the time, England, in its Balfour Declaration at the end of World War I), a cycle of mass crimes began against a people, the Palestinians, similar to which rarely has been seen in history. The Zionist ideology is criminal because it is not simply just another nationalist ideology, as it is presented by the (usually well-paid) apologists of Zionism, since, in contrast to any other nationalist ideology, it is based on the total ethnic cleansing of another Land, which was claimed on the basis of Biblical and historical rights. Setting aside the former, as it is ridiculous even to discuss seriously the myths promoted by some priests as the “revealed truth” (sic!) of God —a pure product of human imagination— let us examine the case of historical rights that a people could potentially have on a land, on account of the fact that its ancestors lived there for many years in the distant past.

It is clear that for such historic rights to have any validity, they should refer to either an empty land, or to a land whose inhabitants (or at least the majority of them) consist of the same people, so that the principle of self-determination is not violated. In fact, however none of these conditions was satisfied at the time of the rise of the Zionist movement. Palestine was far from empty at the time —despite Zionist attempts to make even this gross claim! When, at the beginning of last century, Zionists began to move en masse there from all over the world, where they were dispersed for thousands of years, the Jew population in Palestine was about 10% of the total population. Thus, in 1914 only 85,000 Jews lived in Palestine, occupying 2% of the Palestinian land, versus 700,000 Palestinians and others.[2] Then, during the inter-war period, following massive redemptions of land from poor Palestinians and including other more violent methods, the Jew population in Palestine reached a 30% of the total population in 1939. Finally, as a result of the massive immigration that followed the systematic persecutions by the Nazi murderers, the Jew proportion increased to 40% of the total by 1948. That year the Western powers (i.e. the Big powers of the time), in collaboration with an opportunistic Stalinist bureaucracy “generously” granted to Zionists 55% of the Palestinian land, giving the green light for the establishment of the Zionist state.

However, it is clear that historical rights do not count after thousands of years and the drastic changes in the structure of the population, otherwise Greeks, for instance, could claim the right to return to Constantinople and much of present-day Turkey, with a much stronger right to return than the right of Zionists to return to Palestine, given that this land was lost for Greeks only in the 15th century AD and not many centuries before then, as it happened with the Jew population of Palestine! Yet, the UN, a body which in its foundation charter stresses the right of peoples for self-determination decided to blatantly violate the right of self-determination of Palestinians, who at no stage were asked about their wishes and who obviously were selected as the people who had to pay for the crimes of the Nazis!

The ethnic cleansing continues following the establishment of the Zionist regime

Following the establishment of the Zionist regime, the continuation and expansion of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine has been systematically organized. Thus, on the pretext of the wars of the powerful Western gendarme of the West in the Middle East with the Arab states, the Zionist state kept expanding, to the extent that today in effect occupies 85% of the Palestinian land and absolutely controls the remaining 15%. At the same time, the “international community” (i.e. the Western powers plus Russia) are discussing the prospect of a “generous concession” of various disjointed lands to Palestinians (which, of course, have nothing to do in terms of land area even with the 45% that had been conceded by the UN in 1948) so that a series of Palestinian Bantustans could be created that would form a parody of a Palestinian State. In other words, the two-state solution today, to all intents and purposes, amounts to the establishment of a state-protectorate of the Zionist and the transnational elite (that is the political and economic elites which have their basis in the metropolitan capitalist centres of the G7).

A parallel development after 9/11 has transformed the Palestinian national liberation struggle into a “terrorist” activity! No wonder that when the people of Gaza in the first elections after being conceded “autonomy,” dared to democratically vote the “wrong way,” i.e. to vote against the chosen by the transnational and the Zionist elite, Abbas, a brutal siege was imposed on them, so that its will for resistance is strangled.

The Zionist regime turns now against the resisting world community

However, today, the criminal Zionist regime goes a step further, aiming at smashing even the international resistance against the New World Order. Thus, the attempt of international activists to break the illegal and criminal siege was treated, as it was revealed by the reports that came to light, with a clearly pre-planned operation, both as regards its military implications but also, even more importantly, as a communications exercise. Its model was last year’s (December 2008-January 2009) massacre of the people of Gaza,[3] which, despite the propaganda by the “progressive” part of the Zionists that it was a mistake or a failure, in fact achieved its aim to crush (temporarily, at least) the resistance of the people of Gaza. Today, the same “progressive” Zionist circles (who play the role of the “good cop”), in contrast with the Netanyahu government (the “bad cop”), claim that the operation was a fiasco, a mistake, etc. However, the aim was clear and the future will show if they achieved it or not: to terrorize even the international peaceful organizations, so that in the future they are restricted to harmless (for the Zionists) protests, which will not affect their strategic plans for the strangulation of the Palestinian resistance. In fact, the first indications are very encouraging for the Zionists, as the Irish ship’s (“Rachel Corrie”) peaceful attempt to break the embargo showed, which ended up in a complete fiasco from the point of view of breaking the embargo and was rightly congratulated by Netanyahu, who deviously made the distinction between painless (to Zionists) symbolic protests like the Irish one which are perfectly acceptable by the Zionist and the transnational elite, and more militant ones like those of the “flotilla of freedom” which would be smashed in exactly the same way in the future as in the past week.

The stance of the transnational elite in face of the crime has been the expected one: the UN Security Council and NATO not only did not denounce as piracy the occupation of foreign (NATO members’!) ships in international waters, and as a crime against humanity the murder of the activists (one could imagine how Ahmadinejad would have already being hung like Saddam by the “international community” by now!) but they did not even allow an international investigation on the matter. Instead they effectively assigned the inquiry to the perpetrator of this crime, which has repeatedly shown in the past, with similar inquiries about collective or individual crimes against Palestinians and others, that blatant lies and utter distortion of the facts is their primary way of dealing with them. Of course, most if not all states resort to similar tactics on such occasions, but Israel has perhaps surpassed every other state on this, following the perfect model of Goebbelian distortion of the facts that the Zionists learned well from their tormentors!

Anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism and the “Libertarian” Left

It is clear that it is the total ethnic cleansing of Palestine implied by Zionist ideology that constitutes the ultimate cause of the present crime, given that breaking the embargo of Gaza would have made the institutionalization of the de facto ethnic cleansing in the form of a Bantustan type of protectorate that much more difficult. However, it can be shown that not only the present crime but also the other numerous crimes and massacres carried out by the Zionist regime during its over sixty year history were also ultimately due to its criminal Zionist ideology. In fact, the role of ethnic cleansing in the establishment of the Zionist state was scrupulously examined by a young generation of honest Israeli historians like Ilan Pappé and Benny Morris[4], who effectively demolished the Zionist mythology. Such myths were the allegation that the catastrophe (al-Nakba) was due to the fact that the Palestinians and Arab states did not accept the two-state solution imposed by the UN but, instead, the Arab armies attacked the newly established state which, like a new David, defeated the Arab Goliath and immediately increased the share of land granted to them by the UN, or the myth that there was no ethnic cleansing and that the Palestinians left their homes voluntarily in response to calls from the Arab authorities and radio stations, or the myth that the ethnic cleansing had started after the Holocaust, as the Zionists argued in order to justify it, whereas in fact, as we already saw, it started much earlier.

In this context, it is deplorable indeed that Murray Bookchin has fully adopted all these myths and the Zionist distortion of History in an almost unknown 1986 article,[5] unearthed today by his openly pro-Zionist Communalists (with the obvious aim indirectly to justify the present Zionist crime). In this, despicable for a true libertarian, paper Bookchin even goes as far as to hide the indisputable fact that the Zionist state was built on a massive ethic cleansing. Thus, as he stresses, the very fact that many Arabs stayed in Israel clearly disputes the myth according to which Israeli Jews attempted to get rid of the Muslim inhabitants of the country. But, let us examine the facts,[6] which Bookchin surely knew (or ought to have known if he wanted to be a reliable historian as he aspired to be) but deliberately ignored, with the obvious aim to support the Zionist state. During the fighting of 1947-9 some 700,000-800,000 Palestinians were forced to leave their homes and only 160,000 remained in Israel, who were put under a state of military rule from 1948 until the end of 1966. Since 1948 there has been a massive expropriation of Palestinian lands which, on the “famous” Land Day (30 March 1976), led to big demonstrations protesting the confiscation that were repressed violently by the Zionist regime, leading to six deaths and dozens of injuries.

Furthermore, the facts about the apartheid regime imposed by Zionists on Israeli Arabs that Bookchin “forgot” to mention (the relevant data at the time of his writing this article were in no way better than those of today):

the average salary of Israeli Arab workers in 2007 was only 67% of that of oriental Jews and 52% of that of Ashkenazi Jews;
the average per capita income of Israeli Arabs was $7,700 dollars, compared with $19,000 for Israel as a whole;
in 2007, 51.4% of Palestinian families lived beneath the poverty line, compared with 19.9% of all families;
less than 6% of state employees were Arab;
since the founding of Israel in 1948, there has been no new Arab municipality, as against 600 new Jewish municipalities;
Palestinian citizens of Israel own only 3.5% of the land;
Arab municipalities received less that 5% of development budget funds and 3% of normal government funding, although Israeli Palestinians form 20% of the population.[7]

Even worse for a libertarian, Bookchin does not see that the main enemy is not the “dictatorial Arab regimes” (putting in the same bag the client regimes of the West —Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Gulf sheiks and the rest— with the Iranian regime and the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq). However, it should have been obvious to any true libertarian who was thinking not as a Jew anarchist but just as an anarchist that the main enemy was and still is Western capitalism and representative “democracy” and that the main flag bearer of these institutions in the Middle East is the Zionist regime, followed by the client dictatorial regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf sheiks and the rest. Yet Bookchin, could not see the role of the Zionist regime in supporting the interests of the Western powers at the time (and of the transnational elite today) and that, at the same time, the dictatorial regimes he particularly castigated (Iran, Libya, Syria, Iraq and others) were in fact regimes that usually were brought about by either popular revolutions expressing huge national liberation movements against the West (Iran) or by strong national liberation movements (Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria) or, finally, by military coups against client regimes of the West (e.g. Libya) expressing the same national liberation movements.

There is no doubt, of course, that all these regimes are authoritarian regimes but only a crude “anarchist” mind (or somebody indirectly supporting the system) would put in the same bag an authoritarian regime, expressing the national liberation feelings of its people and which fights against its domination by the transnational elite and at the same time takes various measures to improve their economic condition, with an authoritarian regime which is in effect a protectorate of the capitalist system and is interested only in promoting the interests of the foreign and the associated local elites. The main enemy for a true anarchist should always be the capitalist system and its protégés, as was for instance the practice adopted by Bakunin with respect to the Polish issue. Thus, Bakunin (unlike Bookchin), acting just as an anarchist and not as a Russian anarchist, supported Polish nationalists against the Tsarist regime because he rightly saw that it was the big powers of the time (of which the Tsarist Russia was a main one), that was the main enemy of the day, as expressing the capitalist system of the time and that therefore his duty was to support the Polish national liberation movement rather than Russia. For Bookchin, on the other hand, it seems that the main enemy is the “dictatorial Arab regimes”, whereas all that he had to say about the Zionist regime was that he had “several elements of the Israeli policy to criticize” including the Likud policy which orchestrated the invasion in Lebanon (no word about the massacres of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila which were also “orchestrated” by the Zionist regime!). Thus, for Bookchin the real “fundamental” problem of the Middle East is not (of course!), the Zionist ethnic cleansing and the crimes to which it led all these years but “the problem which is embodied in cynical politicians, big landowners, oil barons, military juntas, fanatical clerics, and the imperialist grubbers in the intermixture of the tragic problems which emerged between Israelis and Palestinians”. In other words, the capitalist system in the abstract and not its concrete manifestations in the area!

Following the unearthing of this blatantly pro-Zionist Bookchin paper, one could now understand the equally blatant pro-Zionist stand adopted by his successors in Communalism like Kjetil Simonsen[8] who had no qualms to declare (with no shred of any evidence to substantiate this particularly nasty pro-Zionist claim) that “Leftists too have espoused anti-Jewish sentiments, trumpeting them in the name of opposing globalization, defending the rights of Palestinians, and fighting imperialism”. Thus, according to this detestable sweeping generalization every Leftist who in the name of opposing globalization fights Zionism and for the liberation of Palestine is suspect of anti-Semitism, which is promoted to be the major problem of today, as if we still live in the 1930s! And all this at the very moment when even the US superpower does not dare to impose sanctions and isolate the Zionist regime, which does not give a damn to its calls even to stop the blatantly illegal settlements through which Zionists keep continuing all these years their ethnic cleansing of Palestine. We have no doubt that such “libertarians” like the communalists will have no qualms to stick the label of “anti-Semitic” to this Journal as well but, fortunately, people all over the world have by now realized the dirty tricks used by Zionists and pro-Zionists to defame and distort in a Goebbelian way the positions of the Left on the matter. The Left, in fact, should not be engaged in a discussion with supporters of such views, unless they declare clearly in advance what their position is with respect to Zionism and with respect to the solution they propose for Palestine. If they only see Zionism as just “another nationalist ideology” and they are not prepared to condemn Zionism itself rather than “bad Zionist policies” for the Israeli crimes (as Chomsky[9] and the Parecon/Znet pro-Zionists[10], as well as various fractions of Greek Castoriadians do) and if they do not reject in advance any two state-solution (which involves the maintenance of the present criminal Zionist state), then no discussion with them on anti-Semitism and racism is possible because such a discussion amounts to a discussion with a pro-South African supporter of the “Bantustan solution” on the evil of racism! In other words any meaningful discussion of anti-Semitism as a form of racism is meaningful only if all participants in such a discussion accept the premise that Zionism is a form of racism because of its fundamental historical aim to ethnically cleanse Palestine in order to establish a “pure Jewish” state in an area which was occupied by other cultures at the time of the emergence of the Zionist movement.

Similar considerations apply to another grimy insinuation by Zionists against the Left that by accusing the Israeli people in its vast majority (as well as Zionists in Diaspora) for their adoption of the Zionist ideology, the Left adopts a Nazi principle of collective responsibility and consequently collective punishment. As regards collective punishment, first it is indeed preposterous for direct or indirect supporters of Zionism to even mention it when the regime they support (irrespective of their disagreements on some of its policies) by its very existence collectively punishes another people just because they had the misfortune to live in Palestine since the 7th century AD! This, not to speak of the actual collective punishments imposed by the Zionist regime on this people culminating in the conversion of the entire Gaza area into a huge ghetto, similar to the Nazi ghettos. Yet, if somebody dares today to compare these practices to Nazi practices, she immediately is characterized by Zionists, pro-Zionists and those media they control as “anti-Semite,” despite the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to call similar practices (e.g. US practices in Iraq), as Nazi, establishing a kind of fire-proof as regards Zionist activities! Similarly, as regards collective responsibility, it is truly unbelievable that a version of the Nuremberg Defence, according to which the accused should be exonerated because s/he was "only following orders” is used again to defend those who directly or indirectly support the Zionist crimes. Thus, an artificial distinction is adopted between the successive criminal Zionist governments and those supporting them, even though they may have not shown any regret for the crimes executed by the former, if they have not even celebrated them. Thus, following the latest Zionist massacre in Gaza, TV newsreels showed Zionists dancing on a hill at the spectacle of a defenceless people bombed to submission whereas Zionists in Britain, instead of condemning this huge crime, were either silent, or they used various devious ways to directly or indirectly support the crime in the media, all this culminating with a huge demonstration by Zionists and pro-Zionists in Trafalgar Square celebrating the crime! Similarly, after the latest crime against the activists who attempted to break the siege of Palestine, we saw big demonstrations in Israel in favour even of this despicable crime, which only distorted minds could see as a kind of “victory”. Of course, all this does not mean that there are no praisable people in Palestine and in the Diaspora who are anti-Zionists and fight against Zionism. But this is unfortunately an extreme minority at the moment (despite the fact that most Jew communities in the Diaspora were anti-Zionist before the establishment of the state of Israel), whereas “progressive” Zionists (like many in the “libertarian” Left) simply condemn some “extreme” Zionist policies, i.e. a symptom of a much deeper malaise —Zionism— which however they do not touch!

All this did not deter a very efficient Zionist propaganda machine to flood the Internet, in accordance with a well-oiled machinery, which was set in motion at last year’s massacre in Gaza[11]. “Libertarians” of various kinds, from Bookchinite communalists to Castoriadian supporters of the autonomy project, came out to “remind” us that the enemy is not the transnational elite which in co-ordination with the Zionist elite are prepared to do the most despicable and heinous crimes to consolidate and expand the New World Order —established since the collapse of “actually existing socialism,” the rise of the internationalized market economy and neoliberal globalization and the consequent “war on terrorism”. Instead, the main enemy for them is anti-Semitism, particularly Left anti-Semitism, which under the pretext of its fight against neoliberal globalization and the New World Order, as well as against Zionism, wishes to deligitimise and eventually destroy the Zionist state! This way any criticism of the Israeli people for the massive support it gives to its criminal governments is considered “anti-Semitic” because it implies a kind of collective responsibility and punishment.

Of course, our stand on the matter is that we should never assign collective responsibility to the Jewish people as a whole and that our critique refers to the Zionist ideology and those from the Jewish people who adopt it and applaud the crimes of the Zionist governments since 1948. However, it is obvious that the more Jewish communities adopt this criminal ideology the more they expose their members to criticism by people from all over the world who fight against the crimes of the transnational and the Zionist elites. This is why all really progressive Jew people (and this is an identity which is incompatible with the Zionist identity after all that happened in the last 60 years or so) should clearly differentiate themselves from Zionism as an ideology and a practice. In fact, an international movement which is spreading at the moment aims to isolate Zionists in the art world (by boycotting Israeli films or films by well known Zionists abroad, by artists not performing in Israel, etc.); in the academic world (by severing any relations with Israeli universities which directly or indirectly support the apartheid regime in Palestine or boycotting the lectures of well known Zionist academics abroad); and, most of all, in the consumer world (by boycotting Israeli products or products by well known Zionist multinational corporations, etc.). All these are useful steps in isolating Zionism “from below,” given that the transnational elite will do everything it can to support this criminal regime and allow it to continue the ethnic cleansing and its related criminal activities.

Towards a multinational one-state solution in Palestine

The above analysis makes clear that if the pleas by prominent members of the Jewish democratic and socialist Left in the past (Hannah Arendt, Isaac Deutscher and others) had been heeded and the Palestinian land had not been split in 1948 for the creation of a “pure” Jewish state next to a Palestinian one, which had never materialized, but, on the contrary, it had been used as a fundament for a multi-national secular state, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. Today, though, even the two states solution has become to all intents and purposes impossible (despite the collaboration of the Palestinian bourgeois class under Abbas in the West Bank with the transnational and the Zionist elite) because of the Zionist crimes and slaughters. However, the solution of a united multi-national and multicultural state comes back in the foreground by truly progressive (i.e. anti-Zionist) Jews, and Palestinians. In fact, several currents are strengthening among both progressive Palestinians[12] and post-Zionist Jews[13] to find a solution, which, rejecting both Zionism and religious irrationalism (Jewish and Palestinian alike), would aim to create a multicultural and inclusive state for all the peoples living today in Palestine. Such a state, as I pointed out elsewhere[14] could also serve as the first step towards a Confederated Inclusive Democracy. The 2007 “One State Declaration”[15] signed by both non-Zionist Jews (Ilan Pappe, Oren Ben-Dor, Jonathan Cook, Joseph Massad, et. al.) and Palestinians (Omar Barghouti, Ghazi Falah, Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, et. al.) is a very important step forward in this direction, which rightly stresses that:

“The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status;
Any system of government must be founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens. Power must be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all people in the diversity of their identities;
There must be just redress for the devastating effects of decades of Zionist colonization in the pre- and post-state period, including the abrogation of all laws, and ending all policies, practices and systems of military and civil control that oppress and discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion or national origin;
The recognition of the diverse character of the society, encompassing distinct religious, linguistic and cultural traditions, and national experiences;
The creation of a non-sectarian state that does not privilege the rights of one ethnic or religious group over another and that respects the separation of state from all organized religion;
The implementation of the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolution 194 is a fundamental requirement for justice, and a benchmark of the respect for equality.
The creation of a transparent and nondiscriminatory immigration policy;
The recognition of the historic connections between the diverse communities inside the new, democratic state and their respective fellow communities outside;
In articulating the specific contours of such a solution, those who have been historically excluded from decision-making —especially the Palestinian Diaspora and its refugees, and Palestinians inside Israel— must play a central role;
The establishment of legal and institutional frameworks for justice and reconciliation.”

How to move to a one-state solution and the crucial dilemma for the Israeli people and the Diaspora

Of course, the question is who is going to support such a solution given that Zionists all over the world will fight it tooth and nail. I think that such a solution could be supported by:

a progressive (at the moment small) minority within the Israeli Jew population and the Diaspora all over the world,
the Israeli Arab population,
the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as the Palestinian refugees who will be allowed to return to their homeland in such a case, and, more important,
people of good will all over the world who are fed up with the Zionist crimes, lies and arrogance all these years and who could demand from their governments to take appropriate action so that a procedure like the following one could begin that would lead to the establishment of a multinational and multicultural solution in Palestine.

Such a solution will obviously have to be approved democratically by the peoples in Palestine and then imposed by the UN given that the Zionist gangsters will have no qualms to use even the nuclear weapons in their possession to avoid the implementation of the decision of a plebiscite that would end their racist state, irrespective of the size of the democratic majority in favour of it.

From the perspective of this Journal, steps in the direction of the proposed solution could be the following ones:

I. Carrying out a plebiscite in which all Israeli citizens as well as all Palestinian inhabitants in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the Palestinian refugees, who would like to return to Palestine, could take part. These will constitute the electoral body, the majority of which will determine the future of Palestine in terms of a “yes” or “no” vote in favour of a one-state solution after a democratic debate, preferably in face-to-face assemblies of the peoples involved. This will be “the moment of truth” for the Israeli people and the Diaspora. In other words, either they will adopt a non-racist democratic state under international guarantees that could potentially lead in the future to a genuine confederal Inclusive Democracy or they will turn their back to such a democratic solution and follow the racist callings of their Zionist leaders, in which case, assuming that the plebiscite for a new democratic non-racist secular state is adopted by the majority of the “electoral body,” they will adopt the conflict with the majority of the peoples in Palestine and the real “world community of the peoples” (not the pseudo-“world community of the elites”), which could well lead to the expulsion of all racists from the Palestinian land, either Zionists or Islamic fundamentalists.

II. In case the Zionists in Israel do not allow the carrying out of such a plebiscite in Israel itself, then unless the General Assembly of the UN (not the UN Security Council which is absolutely controlled by the transnational elite and its stooges) could impose such a referendum in Israel, then, all legitimate Israeli voters on the basis of the data of the last few elections would be considered as negative votes.

III. In case the positive votes of the Palestinians outweigh the negative votes of Zionists, then, the UN General Assembly should pass a vote calling for the implementation of the results of the referendum and the designing of an appropriate constitution.

IV. An assembly of delegates of the people who voted in favour of the one state solution would propose a constitution on how the institutions of this new state will be formed in order to express the wishes of all the peoples in Palestine who approve it.

V. The UN General Assembly will approve the proposed constitution, which will be compulsory for all the peoples living in Palestine.

VI. In case the Zionists with the help of the transnational elite would try to ignore the desires of both the peoples of Palestine democratically expressed and of the world community, then, the countries which voted in favour of the referendum should break diplomatic relations and declare Zionist Israel a rogue state.

VII. In the last resort, if Zionists continue ignoring everybody, the civil war that would inevitably result between the Palestinians and the Zionists should be supported by the movements all over the world supporting the one state solution and international brigades, according to the Spanish civil war model, could be formed that will be ready to fight side-by-side with the Palestinians against the Zionist racists who would have ignored the democratic decisions of non-Zionist Jews, Palestinians and the real world community. Needless to add that the pro-Zionist communities all over the world, as well as multinational corporations etc controlled by similar Zionist interests should be boycotted and ostracized from the world community by peaceful means. However, if such communities and interests help militarily or financially the Zionist state in case it launches an attack against the majority of the electorate body and the real world community of the peoples fighting side-by-side with them, they will obviously face the justified wrath of this real world community all over the world.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the elimination of Zionist racism and its consequent Islamic fundamentalism, which in fact developed as a reaction to this criminal ideology and its practice, would not only lead to the liberation of the peoples of Palestine and set the foundations for the elimination of all authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, starting with the client regimes of the transnational elite and then continuing with all authoritarian regimes, towards a true confederal Inclusive Democracy of all peoples in the Middle East, beyond the capitalist market economy and representative “democracy”. Even more important, the conflict which might develop with the transnational elite, in case it supports the Zionist elite in such a conflict, would open the way for the replacement of the economic elites controlling the capitalist market economy and the political elites controlling representative “democracy” with real democratic institutions controlled directly by the peoples themselves!

[1] Robert Booth, “Autopsies reveal total of 30 bullets in bodies of nine,” The Guardian (5/6/2010).

[2] see T. Fotopoulos, “Palestine: the hour of truth,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 2, No. 2 (January 2006); “The aim of the massacre: To crush any resistance,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 2, No.4 (November 2006); “Zionism and the transnational elite,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 2, No. 4 (November 2006); “The "nakba" (catastrophe) and Zionist mythology,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 4, No. 3 (July 2008).

[3] see T. Fotopoulos, “Middle East: "Democracy" in Action,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 3, No. 1 (January 2007); “General attack in the Middle East,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 3, No. 2 (April 2007), “The Transnational Elite’s New “Model” for the Middle East,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 3, No. 3 (July 2007); “The Crime of the Zionists and the Transnational Elite and the Stand of the Left,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Spring 2009).

[4] Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld Publications, 2006); Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (Cambridge University Press, 1989); see, also, Stanley Aronowitz, “Zionism from the Standpoint of its Jewish Critics,” Logos, Issue 3.3 (Summer 2004).

[5] Murray Bookchin, “Attacks on Israel Ignore the Long History of Arab Conflict,” Burlington Free Press, Vermont Perspective (May 4, 1986).

[6] All data based on Joseph Algazy and Dominique Vidal, “Two states or a state of two nations?”, Le Monde Diplomatique (May 2009).

[7] ibid. Sources: Different reports by UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA); The Human Rights Status of the Palestinian Arab Minority, Citizens of Israel, Mossawa Centre (Haifa, October 2008); Israel: Social Report 1998-2007, Adva Centre (Tel Aviv, 2008). Unless specified, statistics are from 2006.

[8] Kjetil Simonsen, “Anti-Semitism in the Socialist Tradition,” Communalism (01 August 2007),

[9] see Noam Chomsky on Israel and the Gaza Flotilla Attack: "Sheer Criminal Aggression, with no Credible Pretext", Haymarket Books press release (June 2, 2010).

[10] Stephen R. Shalom, “But What Could Israel Do?”, Israeli Occupation Archive (5 June 2010).

[11] see e.g. Jonathan Cook, “Israel's Internet War”, Counterpunch (21/7/2009).

[12] see e.g. Ghada Karmi, “The future is one nation,” The Guardian (25/9/2008); Ahmad Samih Khalidi, “Thanks, but no thanks,” The Guardian (13/12/2007) & “A one-state solution,” The Guardian (29/09/2003),

[13] see, e.g. Esther Addley, “Lines in the sand,” The Guardian (25/07/2002).

[14] T. Fotopoulos, “Palestine: the hour of truth,” op. cit.

[15] The One State Declaration, Counterpunch (29/11/2007).