Israeli Elections: Victory for Zionism
Collusion of Palestinians, Arabs and Others
By Adel Samara
It is interesting that any event in the Ashkenazi Zionist Regime (ZAR) attracts the global attention and transcends the size of this entity in terms of its population size, scientific and economic role. I did not mention its geography/space because it is built on a land that belongs to others. This interest is due to the domination of the Zionist media lobby, especially in the last few years, over the global media in a strange historical era where the role of the media as the armies in the destruction of several nations of periphery – the case of Libya – where media went hand in hand with NATO terrorism.
The world will be different if it pays attention to ZAR in a manner of condemning its rape of the land of the Palestinian people and the expulsion of this people during 1948 war. When this condemnation takes place, it will be a great change matching Marx’s contribution when turned Hegel’s dialectic from standing upside down.
Because this entity is a settler/colonial, Arab analyses of its elections must concentrate on and agitate Palestinians inside the ZAR to boycott these elections, not to fall into superfluous analysis like: who will gain more? and who will make the new government?
I will only mention three reasons for the necessity of this boycott:
First, nature of the state itself: because the Zionist state itself is an illegal entity that was created artificially by the Centre of the global capitalist system whose political forces, arms, money, media, religion and ideology is centered on shifting to Palestine waves of white settlers (attract after 1948 waves of other colors of settlers) began since sixties of the nineteenth century did not stop until the moment. Those well armed settlers, backed by the capitalist West occupied 1948 about 78 percent of Palestinians homeland and completed their occupation and settlement in the rest of Palestine in 1967. All this in a continuous process of mass destruction to the Palestinian presence geographically, demographically, class and economically, revealing that the thesis of Ilan Pappe that what happened in Palestine is ethnic cleansing, is less than the truth.
So, this entity is not legitimate, a fact which recalls what Vladimir Ilich Lenin wrote to the Jewish wing “Bund” of the Russian Socialist Democratic Workers Party in the early twentieth century: “No Jews are allowed to establish a state in Palestine because the state requires to be the people’s land and this is not the land of the Jews”. So, the Palestinian boycott of the Israeli elections is to confirm Palestinian people’s Right of Return (RoR) to their homes and property, while participation in voting is an implicit surrender of this right.
Even in case of a real state, i.e. a state on land of its own people, the national minorities cannot achieve national decisions or laws that contradict the consensus of the majority of parliament despite its political differences between the left and right and center … etc, where all parliament members of the large nationality is entrenched behind their national loyalty.
From here, boycott is the right way. And this way, of course, has its price because it ultimately leads to struggle for the right to self-determination, including secession as Lenin confirmed and defeated Rosa Luxemburg’s thesis during their debate on that issue.
So, the situation of Palestinians in the occupied 1948 must evolve to reject the elections and stand up to the right of self-determination. This rejection does not mean the inability of the 48 Palestinians on the struggle in all areas of life: social, cultural, economic, trade unions, women emancipation and even self determination. Indeed, members of parliament have risks even in normal conditions where often takes a person to seat positions so far from the positions of his party, after carrying him to that success.
It is not rare that a million and a half Palestinians under Zionist settler colonialism claim to secede and this does not harm the RoR of the evicted Palestinian majority to its homeland. Given that the United Nations had bowed to the center of imperialism achieving independents for many minorities that have pledged to turn around its orbit within the (third nationalism wave) and United Nations recognized much of these ethnicities and converted them to independent countries such as those of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, Sudan and underway attempt in Iraq … etc., why Palestinians of 48 would not demand to secede from the ZAR in a move to dismantle the entity and weaken it in order to return to unite Palestine after its liberation from the entity and the RoR and the establishment of socialist Palestine as part of the Arab Homeland. While this socialist solution still a vision for the time being, it faces other false slogans of bi-national state, secular democratic state, state for all its citizens and cultural autonomy … etc.
The second is the betrayed commitment by Arab Regimes: it should be the official and popular Arab position to urge Palestinians in the occupied 1948 not to participate in these elections, as based on the first reason mentioned above. But Arab regimes are mainly dependent, client states and ruled by comprador capitalism revolve in the orbit of the capitalist center, accordingly, they never stand against the elections, or even take a neutral stance. Unfortunately, the Arab League encourages the Palestinians of 1948 to participate in the ZAR elections.
This brings an important issue, which is that these systems are either recognize ZAR openly or secretly or are still reluctant. Thus, the maximum demand of Arab regimes is a state for part of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That is, they dropped the RoR and encouraged Palestinian people to drop this right too. Thus, these constraints in demanding a state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip while ignoring the RoR of Palestinian refugees have left the Palestinian people in great trouble to re-explain to solidarity groups all over the world that the problem is not in the 1967 borders, but in the expulsion and dispossession of the Palestinian of his homeland.
The genuine or at least the supposed position of Arab League must be to exploit the rise of the forces of resistance and evolution of regional powers in the region, Iran, and the emerge of new poles (Russia, China and the rest of BRICS) for strengthening the Palestinians of 1948 to fully boycotting these elections.
Third: the social and political forces of 1948 Palestinians
It is clear that most of the Palestinian political forces in the occupied part in 1948 had fallen into the recognition of ZAR and is involved in what was done by traditional and Hamula’s patriarchal figures since 1948 especially the participation into the Knesset elections. They support false slogans like equality, state for all its citizens … etc. And with the exception of the movement of the Abna’a El-Balad and part of the Islamic Movement, the various political forces have been colluded implicated in these elections. Of course, the promotion of the Zionist establishment of Palestinian participation in the elections is based on two factors:
First: To guarantee that every Palestinian accepts the Jewish state and surrenders the RoR,
Second: to take advantage of the Palestinian voice in the internal competition between the Zionist parliamentary blocs.
Perhaps the declaration of the general secretary of the al-Tajamu’a’ al-Watani al-Democrati, Wasel Taha (the heir of Dr. Azmi Bishara, who ended as an adviser to the Emir of Qatar for Zionism Affairs) is the best expression of the actual involvement of Palestinians who participated in the elections as colludes with the Zionist enterprise, when asked about the position of boycotting the elections, he said: “In the past boycotting was right because the choice was between Netanyahu and Sharon, but now we must participate (Quds TV Channel 1/15/2013), as if, as one could imagine, competition is now is between Netanyahu and Fidel Castro!
Zionism still is the winner
After the lesson of principal, we move to the political lesson from these elections? Does the closeness in number of seats between classic right and the so-called (center and left) is a cause for the “joy” of Arabs who are committed to two states solution and hardly strives to rescue that solution?
Here we must remind those Arabs, Palestinians and others in many countries are friends of ZAR, camouflaged by loving peace, of several basic things:
First: what has been happening since the 1991 Madrid Conference and the Oslo Agreement in 1993 is the peace of capital, where the PLO essentially gave up the Palestinian people’s RoR. Peace of capital is the first edition of Netanyahu’s final project/solution which is “economic peace.”
Second: The so-called Israeli left is the political block and leadership which led ZAR from 1948-1977, occupied the territory of 1967, invented the Jordanian option and the functional division, established settlements in the occupied territory of 1967, deeply supported the pure Jewish State, and finally opposed RoR of the Palestinian people. What is done today by different groups of Jewish right wing parties is a mere repetition of what the so-called left has been doing for decades.
Third: the “left” is on the one hand pure Ashkenazi, who are the founders of the white settler Zionist colonial state, ZAR, and this left today, is less radical even socially than it was two decades ago, it stands for privatization, neo-liberalism and is deeply supportive and is a partner in capitalist degradation from imperialism to globalism.
This brings us to the conclusion that there is a consensus among all these blocs and powers to reject the RoR. As some talk about a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is for political consumption evidenced by the fact that these forces have not applied this project when they were in power.
It is important to note, that the so-called peace forces in ZAR, which pretend to support the Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, aim to seduce and lure forces and currents in the capitalist West which are still pro-Zionist state and even pro a Jewish state and believe that the solution is to “bribe” the Palestinians with a state in the West Bank and Gaza, and therefore, these forces and parties and intellectuals fall in the case of Zionization consciously or maliciously as long as they ignore the RoR.
There is no more racism than to recognize a racist entity which is the Jewish edition of Nazism, armed by nuclear weapons, and insist on denying the RoR of the people to return to their homes and properties. This reveals that under the skin of these people an orientalist and anthropological understanding of Arabs and Palestinians. This is what encourages various political forces in ZAR towards racism in addition to other factors such as:
First: that Ashkenazi control and lead most political forces in the ZAR entity and of course the parliamentary blocs are Ashkenazi Jews: especially Likud, Israel Beiteinu (both right), and Labor and Merits (left Ashkenazi), and movement and Ataid (central Ashkenazi). This confirms my argument that it is a state of Ashkenazi who dominate the left, center and the right as well. Isn’t it a fact that Ashkenazi represent both power and wealth in the ZAR? So why not be “politically right” and racist!
Second: the weakness of Arab position especially after the success of counter-revolutions in containing “mobility – Spring” of Arab masses and maintaining most characteristic of previous regimes, especially in Egypt and Tunisia including the recognition of the Zionist entity. This, in addition to the role of oil rents rulers in destroying Arab nationalist secular regimes in cooperation and on behalf of imperialism and Zionism under the cover of democratizing non-democratic secular nationalist regimes. But the irony is that democratization of these non-democratic regimes has been adopted and injected by imperialism and absolute monarchies.
Third: Zionist leaders grasped the new fact following the steadfastness of Lebanese and Palestinian resistance which is there is no chance for ZAR to occupy more Arab land. Accordingly, the ZAR leadership will concentrate in strengthening its internal social front and will exploit the fragmentation of Arab positions towards Palestine to annex as much as possible of the land in the West Bank and finally avoid as much as possible any negotiations for a Palestinian state.
While neglecting negotiations with Palestinians, ZAR will continue its ambition of Integration through Domination (ItD) into Arab Homeland through economic, technological and military aspects. GCC might depend on the ZAR protection from the false threat from Iran a development, if it happens, will open a new paid job for ZAR which will substitute the eagerness of ZAR to attack Iran.
As is the case – the discussion and analysis of these elections on the ground of number of seats for this block or that, the share of Palestinian lists, and the nature of the coming government, and its position towards “peace” – is meaningless.
It is a tragedy to conclude that the possibility of large Israeli government is highly predictable more than reconciliation between Fath and Hamas.
 See Adel Samara, Epidemic of Globalization, Chapter four p.p. 86-111, published by: Palestine Research and Publishing Foundation, 2001.
 Nineteenth century is falsely called the century of nationalism in a Euro-centricist inclination to generalize Europe’s history all over the world. This was the first wave of nationalism, the second was in mid Twentieth Century by national liberation movements in countries of the periphery, and the third wave is the new wave during era of globalism.