https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/israel-zionism/2017/11/who-saved-israel-in-1947/
After all, the Jewish people has been closely linked with Palestine for a considerable period in history. Apart from that . . . we must not overlook the position in which the Jewish people found themselves as a result of the recent world war. . . . The solution of the Palestine problem into two separate states will be of profound historical significance, because this decision will meet the legitimate demands of the Jewish people, hundreds of thousands of whom, as you know, are still without a country, without homes, having found temporary shelter only in special camps in some Western European countries.
The Soviet Union voted “yes” for partition, as did its satellites Belorussia, Ukraine, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. (Yugoslavia, another satellite, abstained.)
“They saved the country, I have no doubt of that,” Ben-Gurion would say two decades later. “The Czech arms deal was the greatest help, it saved us and without it I very much doubt if we could have survived the first month.” Golda Meir, in her memoirs, similarly wrote that without the arms from the Eastern bloc, “I do not know whether we actually could have held out until the tide changed, as it did by June 1948.”
Belarus and Ukraine were never satellite states of the USSR, they were quite literally founding members and part of the 14 republics.
I don’t know what you think satellite state means.
Yugoslavia was never a satellite of the USSR.
but Czechoslovakia was…
It was a mistake, but their policy towards Israel changed after realizing what it was about. The USSR even fought a war against Israel, and supported Nasser.
After creating a de facto fascist entity its difficult to rectify the mistake.
The USSR wasn’t the one that created it
They saved the country, I have no doubt of that,” Ben-Gurion would say two decades later. “The Czech arms deal was the greatest help, it saved us and without it I very much doubt if we could have survived the first month.” Golda Meir, in her memoirs, similarly wrote that without the arms from the Eastern bloc, “I do not know whether we actually could have held out until the tide changed, as it did by June 1948
Helping out Israel during Arab decolonization is de facto creating the Israel state . Also , USSR was the first one to recognize Israel as de jure
for further context they likely did not see the bigger picture because the closest comparision they likely had was the automonous zone they gave jewish people in Russia; there is a state closed off that was given to Jewish people as a safe haven and self governing state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast)
Its still a big L but like other people said they shifted course on this later on, I think they figured it would be like the above rather than what it turned out to be.
@yogthos
I don’t really have much to add in the topic except small addendum to cfgaussian long post, that Soviets had their own problems with zionists inciting Jews against USSR and experimented with something zionists loudly demanded (autonomy), creating 5 autonomous districts in Ukraine and Crimea and ultimately Jewish Automous Oblast in Siberia. By 1948 those projects were at best limited success because turned out that zionists didn’t really wanted autonomy and equality with Soviet Republics like they were saying, they wanted their own ethnostate.
IIRC for some time Israel was quite leftist , but I know little on the topicedit : seems I’m wrong see below
No it wasn’t. Zionism itself emerged as a response to what people like Churchill saw as “Judeo-Bolshevism”. He doesn’t use the word “Judeo”, but he makes his feelings quite clear in his anti-semitic screed titled “Good Jews and Bad Jews” in which he singles out Jewish leaders as being the source of a plot to “overthrow civilization”. Leaders like Theodor Herzl also sought the allyship of Antisemitic czarists like Von Plehve on the basis that Zionism would be a counterweight to the Bolshevik party.
The reimagining of Israel as some socialist/ leftists commune was revisionism from actors like Ben-Gurion who wanted to shy away from the brazenness of zionist leaders like Vladimir Jabotinsky. Just as in Nazi Germany, the mantle of socialism was simply picked up because of it’s popular appeal. Even the supposed communal kibbutzes today are being privatized.
Source - Palestine: Israel and US Empire by Richard Becker
now that I think about , I probably heard it from a pretty lib source (tldr news) , when talking about Ireland-Israel relations .
And yeah , tell me this guy wouldn’t call the Democrats leftist
Though to confirm , yes , he said
being quite left-wing in the 50s and 60s, Israel and Zionism took a rightward turn in the 70s
looking into it , it seems like its sloppy journalism , as their source says
Zionism in its formative years was far more comfortable with socialist ideology, and the early history of the movement is peppered with such names as Poalei Tzion [Workers of Zion] and Achdut HaAvoda [Unity of Labour], as well as the Kibbutz movement. […] It is ironic, then, that since the late 1960s, as Zionism has drifted ever rightward, Irish Republicanism has been going in the opposite direction
though ofc a very lib perspective too
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Probably becayse most countries don’t give a crap about principle and are a heck of a lot more pragmatic than you would think. At the time Israel was fairly left leaning, one of the most left leaning countries outside the Eastern block. The kibbutz that were attacked on the 7th of October were a prime example of the small collectively owned communities that existed at the time. They were probably useful as a potential ally for the USSR and a heck of a lot more acceptable than the “backwards” conservative societies that surrounded it to Stalin
Nah the about face was a complete shot in the foot, massively hurt the Soviets’ relations with other communist parties in the region- iirc the party line had been support for arab resistance even since the Balfour declaration. Lenin and Trotsky were both strongly anti Zionist and condemned it for the ethno nationalism that it is.
But Stalin reversed course on it and I honestly don’t understand why. The dude was supposedly smart/good at geopolitics how did he not see that it was an imperial project from the start.
Probably because anti Semitism was present in western Europe and the plight of jews made USSR to give jews a homeland but still its a bad decision overall in the long run . The ethnic cleansing project was directly helped by USSR’s policies .
Stalin and giving a shit about the plight of oppressed ethnic minorities, name a more iconic duo
seriously tho he was more than willing to throw them under the bus when it served a purpose, I don’t buy that he was simply overcome by pity or smth. We had working relationships with the various regional nationalists and (half assedly) supported them all the way up to 1947
Stalin was a big proponent of national liberation, which is how the creation of the Zionist entity was portrayed to him. After the Holocaust there was almost universal agreement that something had to be done to protect Jewish people. You cannot fault him for having good intentions and for making a decision that made sense within the geopolitical context of the time.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of the Soviets at that time. Your soldiers had just liberated the concentration camps and witnessed the horrors there. You are told by “left-wing Zionists” that they plan on establishing communes and building a socialist society in Palestine for the protection of Jewish people. The cold war had not quite started yet and your old allies from the war - who you wish to maintain amiable relations with as you focus on the reconstruction of your country - all strongly support this idea as well.
However, after the first Arab-Israeli war, when the real nature of the Zionist project became clear and it was revealed as a violent colonial project and an extension of Anglo-American imperialism, the Soviets made almost a complete 180° switch in their stance toward “Israel”. So when discussing this issue it is important to look at the entire period 1945-1991, not just at the one brief snapshot in time when they supported the creation of the Zionist entity.
As Marxists we should remember to view history dialectically, consider how things change over time, and try and not view events in a vacuum but in their appropriate historical circumstances. This does not excuse the historic mistake that the Soviet Union made in supporting this genocidal colonial project, but maybe it puts it into perspective.
If you were leading the SU at the time, can you guarantee that you would see through the deception of the Zionists and stand firm against pressures both from your own people and from your external allies, knowing that if you do so you will almost certainly be seen as anti-semitic, almost certainly inviting comparisons to the Nazis whom you had just defeated and thus severely damaging the reputation of communism worldwide?
but Soviets broke relations with Israel only after 1967 Israli arab war . Correct ? Man , I was waiting for your response XD
We need more source documents, but as far as I can tell, their relationship was completely done by the 1960s, as Israel fully aligned with the western powers, and the USSR denounced Zionism as an imperialist project.
Its also noteworthy that the USSR fought a secret war against Israel in 1970.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Stalin was not Russian he was an ethnic minority from USSR , he considered ethnic minorities in high regards . He was the one who enshrined the right to secede of an minority SSR from RFSR You are a trot aren’t you ?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm
Thus, the right of self-determination is an essential element in the solution of the national question. - Stalin
What is it that particularly agitates a national minority?
A minority is discontented not because there is no national union but because it does not enjoy the right to use its native language. Permit it to use its native language and the discontent will pass of itself.
A minority is discontented not because there is no artificial union but because it does not possess its own schools. Give it its own schools and all grounds for discontent will disappear.
A minority is discontented not because there is no national union, but because it does not enjoy liberty of conscience (religious liberty), liberty of movement, etc. Give it these liberties and it will cease to be discontented.
Thus, equal rights of nations in all forms (language, schools, etc.) is an essential element in the solution of the national question. Consequently, a state law based on complete democratization of the country is required, prohibiting all national privileges without exception and every kind of disability or restriction on the rights of national minorities.
That, and that alone, is the real, not a paper guarantee of the rights of a minority.
Removed by mod
Equating USSR as a fascist and an authoritarian minority suppressing identity is equivalent to non Leninism. Hence a trot.
Removed by mod
🤨
Does anyone have information on “Leftist kibbutz” being attacked on October 7th?
This is not the first time someone mention it but never read about it on any trusted, anti-Zionist source.
“Leftist kibbutz” are israeli settlements where settlers came in and killed and kicked the Palestinians living there into Gaza then they worked together (the leftist part) in farming or somebullshit. There’s many videos of Al Qassam attacking them, basically any footage that isn’t in a visible military base, the word “Leftist Kibbutz” is just a fascist hijacking of leftist aesthetics for a settlement.
That’s what I imagined, thanks.
I just wanted to check.
Something something the base (settler-colonialism) influences the superstructure (society of kibbutz)
