Communists and the Palestinian Question

Another escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which began last October, continues to draw attention all around the world. The attitude towards this conflict and its participants has become a hot political issue in many countries. 

At the end of December last year, the German “Kommunistische Partei”* published “On the Strategy and Tactics of the Palestinian Liberation Struggle”. In this article, the authors attempted to categorize their views on the Palestinian issue, while also addressing some of the related topics. The article was republished in English later in April.

The “KP”’s article defends its views on the nature of the Palestinian conflict, its participants and outlines the international position and tactics of the communists. These views, in one form or another, are shared by many leftists, including communists, who identify themselves as “Marxists-Leninists”. In addition, in this material the authors took the opportunity to subtly criticize the position of our organization as stated in the article “The War in the Middle East”, presenting it in a distorted light and portraying it as an alleged “left-wing” deviation. 

The question of how to approach the conflict in Palestine inevitably affects not only Palestine itself and the balance of power in the region, but also the current issues of communist tactics and strategy. This is especially important in light of the ongoing crisis in the global communist movement, which has lasted for several decades now. Viewed through the lens of their attitude towards this conflict, we can see who remains consistent with  the Marxist-Leninist platform, and who is inconsistent, wavering, and ultimately shifting to positions hostile to communists.

In this context, we have decided to analyze “KP”’s material, not only to expose the attacks on our organization and defend our views but also to provide a critique of many erroneous positions prevalent among those who call themselves communists. We will also point out the specific features of the current international situation, the primary tasks facing communists around the world today, and which principles we must adhere to in our work. 

*formerly known as the “Kommunistische Organisation”, later in the article referred to as “KP”.

I. On The Palestinian Movement

Throughout their piece, “KP” attempts to articulate the position that communists should take on the conflict in Palestine. 

Talking about national liberation struggles, “settler colonialism”, Zionism, aggressors, victims, etc., the “KP” concludes that the current conflict is first and foremost a struggle for national liberation on the part of the Palestinians, which communists must unconditionally support, regardless of who leads this struggle. 

This is expressed in the defense of, calls of support for, and even cooperation with the “Palestinian national liberation movement”, “Palestinian struggle”, and “the national liberation struggle in Palestine”: 

“A number of parties and organizations that are close to us in terms of content, and with some of which we have close relations, recognise in the abstract that a national liberation struggle is necessary in Palestine, but shy away from supporting it in concrete terms..... The popular masses in all the Arab countries without exception (and in the Muslim world in general) strongly sympathize with the Palestinian struggle – and this is a starting point for the Palestinian national liberation movement to thwart the plans of the Arab bourgeoisies and force them to support the Palestinians... The Palestinian struggle for liberation is legitimate... the working class of the whole world, and therefore of course the communists of all countries, have not only the interest but also the duty to support this struggle.”

What is the real meaning behind these vague terms? We have already briefly analyzed the history of the conflict and its sides in ouraforementioned material. For a deeper understanding of the situation, it is worth paying more attention to what Palestine is today and what forces dominate it. 

1.1. The Balance of Power in Palestine

Palestine consists of two enclaves: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Formally, both territories belong to the “Palestinian National Authority” under the leadership of the “Palestine Liberation Organization” (PLO) led by the “Palestinian National Liberation Movement”, better known as Fatah. 

The PLO has long been the main representative of the Palestinian independence movement. Following a series of protests and civil disobedience against Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, known as the “First Intifada”, the 1993 Oslo Accords between the PLO and Israel proclaimed the establishment of the “Palestinian National Authority” (PNA). 

Even before the 1948 war, a branch of the Egyptian Islamist movement “Muslim Brotherhood”** was established in Palestine. In the 1960s and 70s, it began to receive money for the construction of mosques and “charitable activities” from various Gulf monarchies, under the auspices of the “Islamic Center” led by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

After taking over the Gaza Strip in 1967, Israel began supporting Islamists who had previously been persecuted by Nasser’s Egyptian government. To counterbalance the secular Palestinian nationalists and communists, Israeli officials facilitated the deployment of Islamist activities, including those under the guise of charity. 

Moreover, the Israeli military turned a blind eye to their terrorist attacks against Palestinians themselves. When, in 1981, an Islamist-inspired mob wreaked havoc at a Red Crescent clinic run by communist sympathizer Abdel Shafi, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) did nothing to stop them.

Against the background of the proclamation of the “Islamic Republic” in Iran and the increasing popularity of the Lebanese Hezbollah, also created with the support of Iranian Islamists, the influence of the “Muslim Brotherhood”** began to grow, especially since Israel still preferred to support Islamist parties rather than secular nationalists. 

In 1987, during the First Intifada (a series of non-violent protests organized by Palestinian secular nationalists), the “Islamic Resistance Movement”, known by its acronym Hamas, was founded in the Gaza Strip. The organization’s leader and ideologue was Ahmed Yassin. From the very beginning, Hamas positioned itself as a radical Islamist movement. Hamas did not recognize the Oslo Accords and regularly carried out terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s.

In 2005, after the “Second Intifada”, which was accompanied by terrorist attacks and shelling on both sides, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip and dismantled Jewish settlements there, while still carrying out a policy of settlement in the West Bank. 

The IDF’s withdrawal from Gaza, along with the death of Yasser Arafat (the most prominent leader of the PLO – Hamas’ main rival), increased funding, and the local population’s disillusionment with Fatah, have significantly boosted the Islamists’ popularity.

In the 2006 elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council, the autonomy’s parliament, Hamas won a majority of seats, defeating Fatah and its PLO allies thanks to a first-past-the-post system, despite losing the popular vote. The news was greeted with the withdrawal of U.S., EU, and Israeli funding for the Palestinian government.

Once in power, the Hamas leadership announced that it did not recognize the PNA’s previous agreements with Israel and refused to disarm its fighters. In the summer of 2006, clashes began against the U.S. and EU-backed Fatah. 

Despite a formal agreement in Mecca in February 2007 to form a “government of national unity”, the conflict between Hamas and Fatah supporters led PNA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the government and declare a state of emergency in June. Civil war broke out in the Gaza Strip. As a result, Hamas completely ousted Fatah from the territory. 

In turn, Chairman Abbas, the leader of Fatah, dissolved the Hamas government and outlawed its militants. As a result, Palestinian autonomy was divided between the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the West Bank, where Fatah remained in power.

After the struggle for the Gaza Strip began, Israel declared an economic blockade and Hamas began firing rockets into Israel’s territory. For the next 15 years, Gaza experienced a humanitarian crisis with periodic escalations of the conflict by both Hamas and Israel. Ultimately, the Islamic Resistance Movement turned Gaza into its own territory.

While the Fatah-led PNA controls less than half of the West Bank and relies heavily on agreements with Israel, in Gaza, Hamas had full control of the city and its economy. Despite the blockade and the crisis that has led to a huge increase in poverty and unemployment, the organization has been able to import arms to Gaza and produce them locally. Hamas has trained a large army of fighters, numbering in the tens of thousands.

There have been repeated attempts at negotiations to resolve the conflict between Fatah and Hamas, form a new “national unity government” and hold elections. The last time such talks were held before the current conflict was in October of 2022, a year before the current escalation in Gaza, but the status quo was maintained.

In July 2024, at talks in Beijing, representatives of Hamas, the PLO, and other allied organizations formally agreed to form a unified government, but within days Palestinian Islamic Jihad*** called for demonstrations against the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. 

At present, Palestine remains two enclaves, virtually independent of each other and governed by opposing forces. The fighting in the Gaza Strip (controlled by Hamas) has virtually not affected the West Bank (controlled by Israel and the PNA). Moreover, before the events of October 7, most of Israel’s armed forces were in the West Bank, which was one of the factors contributing to the success of Hamas militants.

It was the “Islamic Resistance Movement”, which controls the Gaza Strip, that started the current escalation on October 7th with its operation called “Al-Aqsa Storm”. Despite the presence of many other organizations, such as Fatah (which controls the PNA and represents Palestine in countries that recognize it as a state), “Palestinian Islamic Jihad”** (an organization allied with Hamas), the PFLP (“Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine”, formally a Marxist-Leninist organization), the DFLP (“Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine”, which holds Maoist views), etc., Hamas is the main and dominant force. 

It is the “Islamic Resistance Movement” that hides behind the vague term “national liberation movement in Palestine”. 

1.2. What Does Hamas Stand for? 

The Egyptian “Muslim Brotherhood”**, which originally included Hamas members in its Gaza branch, advocates for the Islamization of society and the establishment of an Islamic caliphate and is recognized as a terrorist organization in a number of countries, including Russia. There are also reports that it has had repeated contacts and received funding from British intelligence.

At the time of the establishment of this organization, their “Сharter” – the program document of Hamas – was adopted. In it, the leaders of the movement declared the struggle for the destruction of Israel, ethnic cleansing, and the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine.

Let us look at some of the articles of their “Charter”. Article 2 openly states that Hamas is one of the wings of the “Muslim Brotherhood”** in Palestine. In Article 7 there are calls for the killing of Jews. Articles 10 and 11 assert that Palestine is an Islamic territory on which an Islamic state must be built. Article 22 characterizes the Communists as an “imperialist force”. Article 25 states that Hamas supports only those movements that “do not give their allegiance to the Communist East” (i.e., the USSR). Article 29, just like Nazi propaganda, accuses Jews (“enemies”) of starting world wars and revolutions (including socialist revolutions).

Between 2000 and 2010, as Hamas won elections and became a major force in Gaza, the organization’s leadership began to soften its rhetoric with the goal of intercepting pro-Palestinian support from the PLO and Fatah and create an image of “fighters for justice”. In 2017, a new “Сharter” was formally adopted, a populist program designed to give the impression of a national liberation struggle, full of language about fighting the “Zionist project” and the “occupied land”.

But even there, their true aims slip through: Article 4 declares that only Arabs are Palestinians; Articles 7–9 establish Islam as the ideology of the organization and describe Palestine as primarily an Islamic land. Finally, Hamas leaders themselves have always been strongly opposed to any overt recognition of the previous program as “outdated”.

What are the economic views of Hamas? Articles 20-21 and 36 of their first “Charter” proclaim the need for “the supremacy of the Islamic spirit in every Muslim society” and “the mutual responsibility of all members of society”. This solidarist rhetoric is often used by capitalist ideologists to promote the ideas of class collaboration and “corporate society”.

Although their charters do not contain the views of Hamas leadership regarding their desired economic order, their first charter states that the position of the “Muslim Brotherhood”**, to which Hamas has been declared to belong, is characterized by “full acceptance of the Islamic concept of the economy”. 

The “Islamic economy” is a variation of “third way” ideology, which supposedly rejects capitalism and socialism and combines their positive features.

In history, there are examples of the practical implementation of the ideas of the “Islamic economy” in life.

Let us turn to Iran. After coming to power on the wave of revolutionary demonstrations against the pro-American monarchical regime, Khomeini’s “Islamic revolutionaries” actually continued the previous government’s course of strengthening the monopolies and establishing state-monopoly capitalism. As early as 1981, the process of nationalizing industry, which had begun after the revolution, was suspended. Some industrial enterprises were returned to their former owners. After Khomeini’s death, state-monopoly capitalism was supplemented by the extensive privatization of enterprises. 

The leaders of the “Islamic Revolution” defended the interests of Iranian monopoly capital against the U.S. imperialists and defended their oil fields against attacks by the Iraqi regime. 

Iran itself is now a regional imperialist power and is pursuing an expansionist policy accordingly. Part of this policy is the struggle against Israeli capital for establishing dominance in the region. The concrete expression of this policy is the support for Hamas and other groups such as the Lebanese “Hezbollah”, the Iraqi “Popular Mobilization Forces”, the Yemeni Houthi movement, the Palestinian PFLP, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad**, as well as their support for a number of Syrian militias and the Assad regime. 

Another example is Egypt. As early as the 1950s and 1960s, the “Muslim Brotherhood”** denounced the nationalization policies of the pro-Soviet government of Gamal Abdel Nasser as “atheistic” and “anti-Muslim”. After coming to power in Egypt in the early 2010s, the “Muslim Brotherhood”** pursued liberal economic policies aimed at strengthening private capital and monopolies.

The economic policy of Hamas, as we will show below, is also characterized by the active growth of big capital, which makes huge profits in the crisis-ridden Gaza Strip and establishes connections with the leading imperialists in the region.

In general, ideologically, Hamas represents reactionary chauvinist positions. In the economic sphere, the “Islamic Resistance Movement” also defends the interests of capital, which are formally covered by the laws of “Islamic society”. 

The examples of Iran and Egypt show that the “third way” in the form of an “Islamic economy” is in fact a capitalist economy with its inherent division into classes, private ownership of the means of production, and exploitation of wage labor. Cloaked in the rhetoric of Islamic solidarism, the “third way” actually means the dictatorship of capital.

Hamas stands for the same dictatorship. Supporting Islamic fundamentalists means supporting the formation of a semi-fascist state of Islamic radicals.

1.3. Who Pays for Hamas?

The leadership of the organization is in the hands of the big bourgeoisie. The total wealth of Hamas leaders is estimated at 11 billion dollars, according to some sources, mostly Israeli. According to Forbes, the annual turnover of Hamas funds – even ten years ago, in 2014 – was 1 billion dollars. “The Islamic Resistance Movement” has assets totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in Turkey, the Emirates, Sudan, Algeria, and other countries. 

While two million people were living in Gaza amidst a severe humanitarian crisis and gigantic unemployment, the Hamas leadership preferred to live in luxury in Turkey, Iran, Qatar, Lebanon, and the UAE. For example, Ismail Haniyeh, one of the de facto leaders of Hamas, left Gaza in 2019 and has since moved between Turkey and Qatar. His fortune was estimated to be worth several billion dollars. Ismail’s son, Moaz Haniyeh, controlled the real estate market in Gaza and invested in real estate in Turkey. In late July 2024, Ismail Haniyeh was killed in a rocket attack on Tehran. 

Moussa Abu Marzuk, responsible for international relations in the organization, is also a dollar billionaire. It is worth noting that he was arrested as a terrorist in the United States in the 1990s. The United States and Israel knew of his position within the Hamas structure, yet he was released after a few years and sent to Jordan, which agreed to accept him only under American pressure. 

After October 7, U.S. sanctions were imposed on the organization’s leaders who were involved in transferring tens of millions of dollars to Hamas accounts through front companies and investment funds.

As is typical of such organizations, the top brass profited from the suffering of millions of people and behaved like typical “lords of life and death”. Where do Hamas and its leaders get such huge sums of money? 

Even a cursory analysis of the available information points primarily to international capital.

Hamas and Iran. After Ahmed Yassin died in 2004, his successor, Khaled Mashal, established close cooperation with Iran. Hamas received support and technology, while Iranian Islamists gained an ally to assert their influence in the region. Hamas’ military buildup was carried out with active financial support from Iran. Iran has reportedly provided Hamas with tens of millions of dollars, as well as $70 million to establish a “deterrent force against Israel” in early 2022. These funds have enabled Hamas to establish an entire military industry in Gaza, producing rockets and drones, as well as importing weapons from other countries. According to U.S. and Israeli intelligence, Iranian funding for Hamas increased from $100 million per year in 2020 to $350 million in 2023.

Hamas and Turkey. Hamas is known to be funded by Turkey, where the organization’s financial assets are located. According to Israeli intelligence, Hamas members receive training in Turkey and may be granted Turkish citizenship if necessary. Turkish President Erdogan has repeatedly spoken in support of the organization. In July 2024, Erdogan said that Turkey could intervene militarily in the Gaza conflict.

Hamas and Qatar. Qatar also transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamist accounts with Israeli approval. 

Huge sums of money also passed through cryptocurrency: according to some reports, Hamas made transfers of hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2023, Israel seized cryptocurrency wallets containing nearly $100 million in funds linked to the Hamas ally, Palestinian Islamic Jihad**.

Curiously, after October 7, this information began to be actively repeated by the Western media. Even US Assistant Treasury Secretary Elizabeth Rosenberg stated: “Hamas has generated vast sums of revenue through its secret investment portfolio while destabilizing Gaza, which is facing harsh living and economic conditions”. What the bourgeois propagandists have failed to realize is that they are not so much exposing Hamas as showing its links to regional imperialist groups (Iran, Turkey) as well as to the U.S. itself and its allies (Israel, the Emirates, etc.).

Hamas and Israeli capitalists. Ironically, Israel itself plays an important role in supporting Hamas. Throughout the organization’s history, contacts between Israel and Hamas have been observed. 

We have already mentioned above that the Israeli government has encouraged the growth of the Islamists. There is ample evidence that Israel has supported Hamas. 

Yitzhak Segev, the military governor of Gaza in the 1980s, claimed that he facilitated financial support for Palestinian Islamists to create a counterweight to secular and communist organizations: “The Israeli Government gave me a budget and the military government gives to the mosques.”

In the mid-1980s, Avner Cohen, an Israeli official working in Gaza, wrote an official report to his superiors pointing out the negative consequences of supporting Islamists. He later said: “To my great regret, Hamas was created by Israel.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reported, “Over the past 15 years, Israel has done everything possible to weaken the PNA and strengthen Hamas.” In 2019, Netanyahu said that Israel agreed to Qatar’s transfer of money to Gaza to support the struggle between Hamas and the PNA. 

Already after October 7, Yossi Kuperwasser, former head of Israel’s military intelligence research service, said: “Israel’s logic was that Hamas should be strong enough to rule Gaza, but weak enough to be contained by Israel.”

In light of recent events, it may seem strange: why should Israel support Islamists who seek its destruction and carry out terrorist attacks against civilians?

First of all, it encourages Palestinian division. The confrontation between Hamas and the PLO perpetuates the conflict among Palestinians, and the presence of Islamists discredits them, making it easier for Israel to control the struggle and, in turn, create an image of Palestinians as “Islamist terrorists” that suits Israel.

Secondly, Hamas plays the role of the perfect provocateur, not strong enough for full-scale combat but capable of launching rocket attacks and raids like the one on October 7. As the PLO moves away from terror tactics, the existence of Hamas becomes an argument for allocating billions of dollars for militarization and support for Israel’s military-industrial monopolies. 

Domestically, this generates a wave of chauvinism and constantly fuels nationalist hysteria, while internationally it allows Israel to portray itself as a “bastion of order and stability” and is again used to attract funding and military supplies from Israel’s Western allies.

But Hamas also benefits from this situation. The Gaza Strip itself has become another source of funding for it. Unlike in the West Bank, where Fatah controls less than a third of the territory, the Gaza Strip was completely controlled by Hamas forces, which allowed them not only to develop their infrastructure but also to take control of the region’s economy.

As a result of the blockade organized by Israel, a humanitarian crisis began in the Gaza Strip. At the end of 2022, the unemployment rate in Gaza was at nearly 50%, with over 60% among young people and over 70% among women. Since the events of October 7, nearly 400,000 jobs have been destroyed in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Hamas established an extensive system of underground tunnels to smuggle weapons and materials across the Egyptian border. They were also used to deliver food, medicine, construction materials, and fuel. All goods moving through the tunnels were taxed by Hamas. And when Egypt allowed some goods through the border crossing in 2018, Hamas also taxed them, receiving more than $10 million per month.

The Hamas leadership receives huge sums of money and has only benefited from the blockade of Gaza, profiting from the suffering of the workers and consolidating its dominance. 

This humanitarian crisis allowed the Islamists to take control of the Gaza Strip. Hamas also controls the religious endowments (waqf) that constitute one-tenth of the real estate in Gaza. The billions of tax and aid dollars that flow through the Islamic Resistance Movement are used to strengthen and reinforce the group itself, as well as to address potential grievances. Eventually, these funds are deposited in the accounts of Hamas leaders and invested in real estate and securities.

Hamas forces number approximately 40,000 fighters. The leadership of the Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, has announced the addition of thousands of recruits to its ranks since the events of October 7. At the same time, Israeli figures of more than 10,000 militants killed have been criticized as exaggerated, with a disproportionate number of civilian casualties.

In a territory where the vast majority of the population lives in poverty and without means of subsistence, Hamas can easily recruit new members among the lumpenproletariat: desperately poor, degraded and long-term unemployed Palestinians willing to do anything for money. 

The periodic shelling and provocations by both the Islamists and the IDF have the main purpose of maintaining constant tension in the region, which benefits both the parties to the conflict and those behind them: Iran and the Eastern bloc of imperialists in general and the USA and the Western imperialists respectively. 

We can clearly see an Iranian imprint in the program, the actions, and the sources of funding. “The Islamic Resistance Movement”, as well as its allies such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad**, is supported by Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, but is generally a conduit of Iranian interests in the region, and the Palestine they advocate is in fact a local version of the “Islamic Republic”: a bourgeois state, a dictatorship of capital, characterized by the repression of communists, leftist and even liberal forces, the suppression of the labor movement and the imposition of a reactionary Islamist ideology.

At the same time, Hamas’ activities are advantageous for Israel because they create constant tension in the region and thus discredit Palestinians in general.

** The Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are recognized as terrorist organizations in Russia and their activities are prohibited on Russian territory.

II. The Position of “KP” and Hamas

We shall start with the fact that “KP” opposes negative attitudes toward Hamas. In their article it is repeatedly pointed out that such a position allegedly causes harm. 

For example, according to “KP", those who oppose Hamas are not only negative towards Hamas, but towards the struggle in Palestine as a whole. This narrative is actively used throughout the following piece: 

“A de facto dissociation from the Palestinian liberation struggle leads to leaving this struggle in Palestine to the Islamic and bourgeois nationalist forces.” 

This falsification is most obvious when the “KP” quotes our article. Despite our point that the sides of the conflict are the Israeli bourgeoisie and Hamas, and this is why we cannot support either side, “KP” quotes from the last part of our article and writes: 

“...The devastating conclusion is therefore: the Palestinian liberation struggle is not our cause, or at most it is abstract in the sense of general declarations.” 

Here an attempt is made to present the case as if the conflict is essentially only about national liberation and therefore, unlike the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, is not a part of the international confrontation, that the dependent parties in this conflict are supposedly acting independently of the “great powers”, which in turn are not “on opposite sides”. 

“We want to argue here against this position, which mechanically transfers the analysis of the ["Special Military Operation"] in Ukraine to the context of Palestine… Israel is not a puppet of the USA, but an independent capitalist state with its own bourgeoisie, despite close relations of dependency. And the Palestinian resistance groups are certainly not puppets of China or Russia in their conflict with NATO and the USA, especially as it is not at all the case that China, Russia and the USA are clearly on opposite sides with regard to Palestine.”

It is also implied that the negative attitude toward Hamas is sectarianism, left deviation, or based on a simple misunderstanding of Marxist theory.: 

“Dividing the resistance on the basis of ideological differences, despite the unity in the strategic goal of shaking off colonial oppression, is sectarianism… for us it is also a question of justifying the Marxist-Leninist analysis of imperialism and our conception of a revolutionary strategy against a left deviation that ultimately harms the communist movement… Comrades who recognise “dissociation” from Hamas as a precondition for any statement ultimately fail to understand what a national and anti-colonial liberation struggle is.”

Finally, this attitude is recognized as a pandering to the social-chauvinists, to the capitalists, and to Israel: 

“Dissociation from the Palestinian liberation struggle leads to leaving this struggle in Palestine to the Islamic and bourgeois nationalist forces and to strengthening those forces in the world communist movement that want to lead “national liberation struggles” all over the world, even if this has nothing to do with the actual conditions and struggles on the ground… The equation of Hamas with IS is simply a repetition of Israeli war propaganda… If communists accept the condition dictated by the ruling class that the condemnation of Hamas as “anti-Semitic” is a prerequisite for any discussion and cautious criticism of Israel’s policies, then they are handing the capitalists an instrument of power that should be knocked out of their hands.”

In general, the “KP” interprets a critical attitude toward Hamas as a refusal to support the national liberation struggle.

As a result, the position of the “KP” boils down to this: one cannot criticize Hamas because it is negatively described by the bourgeois (Western) media, and communists should not support the capitalists and weaken the Palestinian national liberation movement. Those who do so become accomplices of the capitalists, social-chauvinists, and ignorant of Marxist theory.

Let’s take a closer look at this position.

2.1. Thesis: "To oppose Hamas is to oppose the Palestinian movement"

In the material with our position we explicitly pointed out that the sides of the conflict are neither Palestine, nor the workers of both countries, but Israeli capital and Hamas, representing the interests of Western and Eastern capital, respectively. We have shown above that, given the dominant position of Hamas, abstract words of support for the current “Palestinian movement” actually lead to support for this organization.

The “KP” tries to prove that, on the contrary, it is necessary to support the “Palestinian movement” as a whole, and they appeal to the examples of China, Vietnam and even the Comintern program.

“For example, the Communist International wrote very clearly in its 1929 program: “The international proletarian revolution represents a combination of processes which vary in time and character; purely proletarian revolutions; revolutions of a bourgeois-democratic type which grow into proletarian revolutions; wars for national liberation; colonial revolutions. The world dictatorship of the proletariat comes only as the final result of the revolutionary process”… The strategic line of the national liberation struggle outlined here is by no means new. It is basically the line that communist parties have always followed in national liberation struggles, be it in China, where the CP cooperated with the bourgeois-nationalist Kuomintang in certain situations and fought against it in others, be it Che Guevara’s cooperation with non-communist revolutionaries in the Cuban liberation struggle, the national liberation movements in Vietnam or in the Balkans during the Second World War – everywhere the communists won the leadership of this resistance struggle by fighting together with other forces against the main enemy…”

The “KP” presents the case in a way that suggests they are simply following the tactics of the Soviet Union and the Comintern, which supposedly did nothing but support the most radical forces on a case-by-case basis.

But first of all, it was not the communists who downplayed their program and theory. On the contrary, the aforementioned national liberation forces, under the influence of various factors, rose to a communist understanding of the national liberation strategy.

Secondly, the very fact of the existence of the USSR forced the actual national liberation forces that opposed colonialism and imperialist states to gravitate towards the communists or to switch to the communist platform and eventually to the Soviet Union. This allowed them to gain a powerful ally in the form of the USSR and its support in the long run.

In China, the nationalist Sun Yat-sen, rejected by all the bourgeois powers, eventually established contacts with the Bolsheviks, who were the only force that consistently opposed colonialism and did not seek to turn China into their colony.

Under the guidance and serious material support of the Comintern, his party was reorganized into a powerful force, and the Communists had a significant influence in the Kuomintang for a long time. Under the influence of the October Revolution at the turn of the 1910s and 1920s, the future leader of the CPC, Mao Zedong, also switched to communist positions.

We see the same situation in Vietnam and Cuba: neither Ho Chi Minh (who joined the FCP after the leaders of the Entente ignored his letters on the question of the Indochinese colonies) nor Fidel Castro (who joined the Communists after the victory of the revolution in Cuba) were originally Communists.

Faced with the imperialist powers, their interests, and their unwillingness to solve the question of national liberation, they were forced by the very logic of the struggle to join the communists and turn to the most powerful and organized international force that consistently stood for freedom and independence and was able to provide material support – the Soviet Union.

However, the Soviet Union never sought to subjugate these movements and turn their regions into its colonies, equally avoiding unprincipled support for any opponent of the West under the slogans of abstract progress and the struggle for peace, as modern capitalists do to cover their imperialist ambitions. 

Even at a time when socialism was on the rise, communists pointed out the subordination of the national liberation struggle to the cause of proletarian revolution. And in the 1920s and 1930s, for example, the danger of Islamism was noted. The “KP” referred to the program of the Comintern, but here, for example, they decided not to mention Lenin’s theses on national and colonial questions adopted at the Second Congress of the Comintern. These theses cross out the whole elaborate scheme of “KP” in which loud words about national liberation struggle eventually lead to support for Hamas:

“With regard to the more backward states and nations...it is particularly important to bear in mind…

  – second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries...

 – third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.”

Furthermore, the theses raise, among other things, the problem of Palestine and Zionism, but even on the question of temporary agreements and even alliances with bourgeois democracy in the colonies (which Hamas is not), the Comintern demands not to merge with it in any case, but to preserve the independence of the proletarian movement “even in its embryonic form”. Take, for example, the article “Islam” from the 29th volume of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1st edition, published in 1935.: 

“In the context of the general crisis of capitalism, which has increased the pressure of the imperialists on the colonies and dependent countries, the reactionary activities of the Muslim organizations are even more widespread. In particular, the crisis has even led to the creation of special organizations which, based on the principles of Islam, under the guise of “charity”, seek to deceive the working masses by giving them alms and diverting their revolutionary energy in the wrong direction [remember how Hamas was born – PS] ... In general, the strengthening of reaction is always accompanied by the growing importance of Muslim organizations... Imperialism in the countries of the spread of Islam uses trends such as pan-Islamism, pan-Turkism, etc. For example, British and Japanese imperialism used pan-Islamism... Similar tendencies are present in the joint actions of British imperialism and the Muslim clergy in Iraqi, Turkish and Iranian Kurdistan. Recently, the Muslim clergy, struggling with the growth of revolutionary movements in colonial and dependent countries, has colored the teachings of Islam and the actions of its founders with allegedly communist tones [in the same vein is the loud rhetoric of modern Islamists about the “struggle against colonialism”, “revolution”, “liberation”, etc. – PS].”

The existence of the socialist bloc made it possible to provide serious support, but this support came only when the forces for whom it was intended were oriented toward the USSR. Then the struggle was really in the interest of the socialist countries. 

“...it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism” – V. I. Lenin. A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism.

It should be remembered that historically, the imperialists have repeatedly used national liberation movements for their own interests. For example, after World War 1, the Entente countries tried to divide Turkey and turn it into their colony under the slogans of national liberation of Armenians and Greeks. The Bolsheviks supported the Turkish nationalists not because they valued the national independence of the Turkish people above that of the Armenian or Greek peoples, but because this issue was merely a cover for the imperialist expansion of France, Italy and Britain.

Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, the capitalists supported anti-Soviet movements that also cloaked their intentions in the rhetoric of national liberation.

As we can see, even in the Soviet period, the tactics of the communists concerning the national liberation struggle did not stoop to supporting any forces that raised slogans that were anti-imperialist only in form. And vice versa: when the USSR, in the later stages of its existence, began to support various forces indiscriminately (as in the case of Iran), the communists were defeated.

By invoking the Comintern and the Soviet period, the “KP” fails to realize that neither the Comintern nor the USSR exists today. The Communist International was a unified world organization of communists that coordinated their activities. The Soviet Union was the largest stronghold of socialism, the backbone of the communists, which actually supported them all over the world. The largest country in the world was a socialist state. The USSR poured huge funds into the international communist movement.

Today, the situation is completely different: the communists are deprived of their theoretical and organizational unity, and the Soviet Union and the countries of the former socialist bloc have been replaced by bourgeois states.

Under these conditions, it is necessary to be particularly careful about the attitude towards different political forces and to clarify their class essence. 

The issue of Palestine and Hamas is no exception. In this particular case, it means that under the guise of “fighting Zionism”, “supporting the Palestinian movement” and outrage (quite rightly) over the deaths of civilians in Gaza, communists are being drawn into supporting Hamas and justifying Islamic fundamentalism. When communists uncritically accept the slogans of various political forces, they contribute to the growth of the influence of these forces and move to positions of opportunism. 

The “KP” states that if the bourgeois media are against Hamas, that is all the more reason for the communists not to condemn them. Indeed, there is a real information war unfolding in the West over the war in Gaza. But this does not mean that communists should refrain from analyzing either side because of the actions of the other side.

This is especially important because not all bourgeois media have a negative view of Hamas. For example, in the pro-China bloc of countries, especially those with Muslim populations, many media outlets also condemn Israel’s actions. In such countries, communist support for an abstract “Palestinian movement” means following the bourgeois agenda. 

Referring to the popularity of Islamic fundamentalism, the “KP” talks about the need to fight against it, only to say these words a few sentences later: “If communists in this concrete historical situation believe that the main enemy is political Islam, it means that they have confused the essence with the appearance of things.”

Ultimately, when it comes to Hamas’ negotiations with Israel, its connections with Iran and the international ultra-radical Islamic movement in general, “KP” remains silent or mentions some points briefly, merely for the sake of formality. 

The position of obfuscating the essence of the “Palestinian movement” and denying the enormous influence of Islamic fundamentalism within it, especially in the conflict region, only means supporting the other camp of capitalism. Social-chauvinists also follow this line because they are interested in supporting the China-Russia bloc (and thus Iran and Hamas) as “progressive forces”. The lack of objective analysis to the situation in Gaza plays into their hands.

Does the communists’ unambiguous negative position on Hamas mean that it is an anti-Palestinian statement? Should we gloss over the role of Hamas and hide it behind abstract phrases about the “Palestinian movement”? No. 

On the contrary, communists make their work of organizing and agitation easier when they take clear positions on every problem of the day, do not succumb to bourgeois propaganda, and do not join the stream of supporters of one of the imperialist blocs.

2.2. Thesis: "Hamas stands for the liberation of Palestine"

Earlier, we examined that Hamas expresses the interests of big capital and speaks from the reactionary positions of Islamic fundamentalism. However, the bourgeois essence of this movement is also used to portray the “Islamic Resistance Movement” as a moderate organization “merely” advocating independence, an independent state, even if it is a bourgeois one:

“There is no objective reason why national liberation should be understood as an intermediate stage rather than an elementary strategic goal of socialist strategy. Of course, this does not mean that in cases of doubt national liberation under bourgeois auspices should not be welcomed and supported, in order to then take up the struggle against the new bourgeois state.”

First of all, Hamas really does declare the struggle for an independent and bourgeois Palestinian state. But what kind of bourgeois regime would it be? 

“What would a Palestine liberated from occupation under the leadership of the bourgeoisie look like?” – asks the “KP”, and.... points to Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. Rightly pointing out that the overthrow of colonialism established the dictatorship of capital and did not lead to a significantly better life for the millions of working people in these countries, and that the communists failed to develop the right strategy. The “KP” essentially proposes to repeat their mistakes.

An example of life under Islamic fundamentalist rule is the Gaza Strip, where millions of people live in a state of humanitarian crisis, poverty, and unemployment, while the notorious Hamas has turned it into a lucrative business, earning hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Another example is Iran: the regime of the “Islamic Republic” is also a bourgeois regime, but there is no talk of bourgeois-democratic freedoms. This capitalist regime, which is close to a fascist regime in many aspects, receives huge profits from the world market situation, from the sale of raw oil and its products. 

This, combined with other factors, allows Iranian monopoly capital to actively promote its interests in the region, becoming a regional imperialist and providing enormous financial support to those forces that agree to work with Iran, such as Hamas. 

And yet, the “KP” overlooks Iran, although Hamas depends most heavily on this country, not on the other countries mentioned above. 

The “KP” is caught in a schematic approach to the question of the national liberation struggle, believing that if the Palestinians do not have their own independent state, and Hamas represents the interests of the bourgeoisie and advocates armed resistance, then they believe that this movement should be considered as unequivocally progressive, regardless of its views and activities. 

“Not only will such forces [Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad**] not be able to win a socialist revolution, they are likely to one day act as its mortal enemies and do everything in their power to prevent it.” – the “KP” writes in a naïve way, as if the communists had never had to face Islamic fundamentalism before.

Secondly, history shows that the Islamic radicals gave no quarter to the communists and never planned to do so. Already in the first Hamas program document, their first “Charter”, the opposition to the communists is explicitly stated.

The example of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which also followed Iran and became a puppet of Hamas, is illustrative. Now they are mourning the death of Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi, who was directly involved in the execution of thousands of people, including communists, as well as the death of one of Hamas’ leaders, dollar billionaire Ismail Haniyeh, who was declared to be a “martyr”. 

That same Iran, which is behind the PFLP and Hamas, is led by a reactionary group of capitalists, is openly anti-communist, and is responsible for the torture and mass executions of tens of thousands of communists from the People’s Party of Iran and other communist organizations.

Perhaps the “KP” thinks that after a hypothetical victory over Israel and the establishment of a “normal” bourgeois state in Palestine, Hamas will allow the Communists to do something as recognition of their merit and “participation in the movement”.

What Hamas plans to establish in Palestine after a hypothetical victory over Israel is an Islamic state, which can also be read in its “Charter”. How can bourgeois-democratic freedoms function in an Islamic bourgeois state? Again, the example is Iran, where the Islamists “thanked” the leftists and especially the communists of the Tudeh Party with the repression of tens of thousands of people after the 1979 revolution.

This was despite the fact that the Tudeh Party of Iran also helped the Islamists gain power and did so at the behest of the Soviet Union. As research and the participants’ memoirs show, the CPSU Central Committee had no information about the actual state of affairs in Iran at the time of the revolution. This led to an underestimation of the influence of the Shiite clergy, who were supported by the Shah in their fight against the Communists, and an overestimation of the influence of the Communists, who were deep in the underground. Driven by a desire to avoid a repeat of the 1953 coup at all costs, when the wrong tactics had alienated the broad masses from the Communists, the CPSU demanded that the Tudeh support the slogans of Khomeini and his followers. Even after the revolution, the left was effectively barred from nominating its own candidates for the presidency because all candidates had to support Khomeini’s ideas. 

When the CIA passed data on Soviet funding of the Tudeh to the Islamists, obtained from the defector Kuzichkin through British intelligence, the Islamic fundamentalists made no concessions. On the contrary, this information was used for repression, in which tens of thousands of communists were persecuted and party leaders were either exterminated or forced under torture to declare themselves “traitors”, “spies”, and “enemies of Islam” in front of the cameras.

Islamic radicals are so unprincipled that they have repressed not only leftists and communists but also their fellow Islamic theologians. For example, one of the “great ayatollahs”, Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari, who saved Khomeini from the death penalty in the 1960s, criticized his views after the revolution in Iran. Khomeini “thanked” his savior by stripping him of his theological title and placing him under house arrest until the theologian’s death. Another theologian, Muhammad Shirazi, was also arrested by the regime and died in prison.

This shows us that religion is an ideological cover for the quite down-to-earth interests of big capital. However, almost all of this information somehow got past the “KP”.

2.3. Thesis: "The war in Gaza is a war of national liberation, not an imperialist conflict"

By presenting Hamas as a positive force, the “KP” seeks to portray the current conflict as a “normal” struggle for national liberation in which everything is “obvious”: “the Palestinian people” use any force to support their struggle, and communists must support them in their struggle against imperialism. 

“KP” refers readers to Marx’s position on the Irish question. Those who oppose this position are portrayed as a left deviation: 

“...for us it is also a question of justifying the Marxist-Leninist analysis of imperialism and our conception of a revolutionary strategy against a left deviation that ultimately harms the communist movement.” 

There is an allusion to the discussion between Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg on the national question, in which Lenin opposed her “left-wing” deviation and defended the fundamental possibility of just wars of national liberation under capitalism. The “KP” conveys the idea that the condemnation of the Islamic fundamentalists who supposedly represent the inhabitants of Palestine  is a denial of the national liberation character of the current conflict, as well as the possibility of such wars at this stage. They claim this contradicts the position of the classics of Marxism-Leninism on the national question.

However, if we read the works of the classics, we see that Lenin, for example, was not indifferent to the forces that would lead this struggle. We have already quoted him above on the attitude of the Communists to the revolt of the reactionary classes. Examining the position of Luxemburg in the work “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, Lenin repeatedly points out the danger of the proletariat submitting to the bourgeoisie in this struggle:

“The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion… For the proletariat, however, the important thing is to strengthen its class against the bourgeoisie and to educate the masses in the spirit of consistent democracy and socialism…On the plea that its demands are “practical”, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations will call upon the proletariat to support its aspirations unconditionally… [this is similar to the situation in Palestine, where Israel’s aggression is used as the justification of unconditional support for the interests of Islamic radicals – PS]...The proletariat is opposed to such practicality. While recognising equality and equal rights to a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle [emphasis ours – PS].”

The Leninist view necessarily includes the need to distance oneself from unthinking support for any capitalist demands of oppressed nations simply because they are oppressed nations: 

“The interests of the working class and of its struggle against capitalism demand complete solidarity and the closest unity of the workers of all nations; they demand resistance to the nationalist policy of the bourgeoisie of every nationality. Hence, Social-Democrats would be deviating from proletarian policy and subordinating the workers to the policy of the bourgeoisie if they were to repudiate the right of nations to self-determination, i.e., the right of an oppressed nation to secede, or if they were to support all the national demands of the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations.”

If the workers give in to nationalism on this question, if they substitute the national liberation struggle with demands to side with one of the camps of capital for various reasons (as the “KP” does), they split the working class and make it easier for the capitalists to disunite the workers:

“In any case the hired worker will be an object of exploitation. Successful struggle against exploitation requires that the proletariat be free of nationalism, and be absolutely neutral, so to speak, in the fight for supremacy that is going on among the bourgeoisie of the various nations. If the proletariat of any one nation gives the slightest support to the privileges of its “own” national bourgeoisie, that will inevitably rouse distrust among the proletariat of another nation; it will weaken the international class solidarity of the workers and divide them, to the delight of the bourgeoisie.”

If we consider the issue concretely, in the context of the current conflict, we see that Hamas is pursuing a reactionary policy, deceiving the Palestinian Arabs, making them accomplices and victims of its October 7 attack, and ultimately defending the interests of capital above all. 

This position does not deny the possibility of wars of national liberation under imperialism. On the contrary, precisely because such wars are possible, communists must carefully analyze the ongoing conflict, take into account the interests of all parties involved, and think through the tactics of action.

Nor does this mean that communists deny the existence of the problem of national liberation in the region. As an outward manifestation of this problem in Palestine, the current war in Gaza is an expression of the contradictions between the Israeli and Palestinian bourgeoisie, between the warring imperialist blocs, but it is not necessarily a war of national liberation.

The “KP” tries to refute the fact that this conflict is part of a confrontation between international capital groups:

“It is one thing to say that the main imperialist conflicts are reflected in every single conflict. It is quite another to claim that these global lines of conflict constitute the essence of a local war or conflict (as is undoubtedly the case in Ukraine or Taiwan, for example), or even to degrade the warring parties to mere puppets of the major imperialist centres… the war is a colonial war from the Israeli side on the one hand and a war of national liberation from the Palestinian side on the other. Therefore, it is not essentially a conflict between the imperialists over the redivision of the world.”

This is done in an attempt to present the war in Gaza as a conflict that is different from other conflicts of our time (primarily the Russian-Ukrainian one), and in which the main role is played not by the interests of capital, but by the “liberation struggle”. 

Is the conflict in Gaza part of a struggle between rival imperialist blocs? Behind the backs of the Israeli bourgeoisie and Hamas are the big imperialists who are interested in keeping tensions in the region at their highest. 

Palestine, as well as the Middle East as a whole, has long been divided into different zones of influence and represents a battlefield of imperialist powers. The existence of a certain independence of the immediate participants not only does not disprove this but on the contrary, makes us doubly cautious in analyzing the current conflict.

On September 10, 2023, an agreement was signed between India, the United States, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, and Jordan for an India-Saudi Arabia-Israel-Greece trade route over land and across the Red Sea. The next day, Turkish President Erdogan rejected the plans because the route bypassed Turkey.

A month later, Hamas launched its operation, destabilizing the region and effectively cutting off the land route. At the same time, pro-Iranian Houthis attacked ships in the Red Sea. The combination of these events forced the partners to postpone the project.

Both Israel and Hamas portray themselves as victims. The Hamas leadership, in explaining the reasons for the attack, declared itself a fighter against the occupiers and a defender of the Palestinians against the “Zionist colonial occupation”, as well as a defender of all Muslims whose holy site, Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque, has been desecrated by the Israelis. 

The Israeli Prime Minister, for his part, said after the attack that there must be “mighty vengeance for this black day”: “We will take revenge for all the young people who lost their lives. We will target all of Hamas’ positions. We will turn Gaza into a deserted island.” 

The capitalists behind them on both sides are using this conflict to present themselves as fighters for peace and justice.

Arab and Muslim countries have largely condemned Israel and called for negotiations. Some countries, including Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey, have withdrawn their envoys from Israel. Iran has repeatedly expressed support for the Palestinians and threatened to intervene if Israel launched an invasion of Gaza. In April 2024, in response to an Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Iran, along with its allies, launched a missile attack on Israel.

Unlike most countries of the “Muslim Pole”, Azerbaijan came out in favor of Israel. In February 2024, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev met with Israeli President Yitzhak Herzog. In the same month, Azerbaijan became the main supplier of oil to Israel.

In the immediate aftermath of the Al-Aqsa storm, the Western imperialist bloc condemned the attack and expressed its support for Israel’s response. Later, however, after the information about civilian deaths appeared and spread in the media, the leaders of some Western countries began to make statements about the inadmissibility of collective responsibility. 

The Prime Minister of Canada expressed the need to support and provide aid to the people of Gaza. Belgian leaders called Israel’s actions a heartless, bloody campaign. Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez spoke with Belgian Prime Minister Alexandre De Croo at the Rafah crossing point and described Israel’s actions as an unacceptable discriminatory killing of innocent civilians, including thousands of children.

French President Macron issued a statement saying: “Fighting terror does not mean to flatten Gaza”. As a result, even the U.S. began dropping food supplies into Gaza, drawing a negative response from Israel. Scotland’s First Minister Hamza Yousaf called for the creation of a humanitarian corridor in Gaza, saying that collective punishment of its two million inhabitants was unacceptable. According to polls in early 2024, generally positive attitudes towards Israel were only in the United States.

China formally took a neutral position, condemning the escalation and calling for negotiations. Chinese Foreign Ministry officials have pointed out that they are “friends of both Israel and Palestine”. But China has also repeatedly expressed support for Palestine. Foreign Minister Wang Yi pointed out that the conflict was “a tragedy for humanity” and that “injustice done to the Palestinian people must be corrected”. 

As we mentioned above, negotiations between representatives of Palestinian factions took place in China. This did not prevent Chinese companies from supplying Israel with drones for the Israel Defense Forces which were used for strikes on Gaza. 

Afghanistan, which is controlled by the Taliban** and also belongs to the Chinese bloc, has condemned Israel’s actions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin called the Hamas attack “unprecedented in its brutality” and acknowledged Israel’s right to defend itself, but called for a two-state solution to end the conflict. On October 26, 2023, a Hamas delegation led by Marzouk arrived in Russia. In late 2023, Minister Lavrov indicated that Israel’s goals in Gaza were comparable to Russia’s goals in Ukraine.

South Africa, a member of BRICS, called for de-escalation and blamed Israel for the conflict. In late 2023, South Africa filed an application with the UN International Court of Justice accusing Israel of genocide. Ireland, Belgium, Slovenia, and Spain supported South Africa’s allegations. Among the BRICS members, only India has expressed general support for Israel.

The Gaza war ultimately damaged American influence in the region, split the Western imperialist camp and strengthened the opposition bloc, which includes Iran, China, and Russia, as well as regional forces.

Based on the position of the “KP”, they support Hamas in this conflict, and internationally they sympathize with Iran, Russia and China:

“The fact that the Palestinian movement is turning to the capitalist states of the region and trying to influence their foreign policy in the Palestinian interest is something that we as communists cannot condemn. To condemn it and thus sabotage the national liberation struggle, while we ourselves live in a country whose national question was resolved a long time ago, would indeed be an expression of a chauvinist attitude.”

“...some communists have recently put forward the theory that the war in Palestine is ultimately an expression of the global conflict between the US/NATO alliance on the one hand and the bloc around Russia and China on the other...It is one thing to say that the main imperialist conflicts are reflected in every single conflict. It is quite another to claim that these global lines of conflict constitute the essence of a local war or conflict…” – the “KP” states.

In the 21st century, with imperialism dominating the planet and the redistribution of the already divided world going on everywhere, every opportunity is used by the capitalists of rival groups to strengthen their positions and weaken their rivals. 

The fact that wars can look national in form but be imperialist conflicts in essence was again shown by Lenin when he considered the American Revolutionary War and compared it to the First World War:

“England and France were engaged in a seven years war for colonies, i.e., they waged an imperialist war (which is as possible on the basis of slavery, or of primitive capitalism, as on the basis of highly developed modern capitalism). France was defeated and lost part of her colonies. Several years later the North American States started a war for national liberation against England alone. Out of enmity towards England, i.e., in conformity with their own imperialist interests, France and Spain, which still held parts of what are now the United States, concluded friendly treaties with the states that had risen against England. The French forces together with the American defeated the English. Here we have a war for national liberation in which imperialist rivalry is a contributory element of no great importance, which is the opposite of what we have in the war of 1914 –16 (in which the national element in the Austro-Serbian war is of no great importance compared with the all determining imperialist rivalry) [emphasis ours – PS].” – V. I. Lenin. The Junius Pamphlet.

The Serbian Social-Democrats also understood the situation Lenin had in mind. Despite the aggression of Austria-Hungary and the oppression of the Yugoslav peoples by the Habsburg monarchy, they did not succumb to the frenzy of nationalism. After the outbreak of the First World War, the Social Democrats of Serbia resolutely distanced themselves from the chauvinist policies of the Serbian bourgeoisie and stood in solidarity with the working class of Austria-Hungary. Their position was supported by Lenin: 

“Social-Democrats did their duty only when they fought chauvinist passions at home. And the Serbian Social-Democrats offered the best example of such fulfillment of duty.”– V. I. Lenin. Speech at G. V. Plekhanov’s Lecture “On the attitude of the socialists to the war”. 1914.

In the current conflict, as in the war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia in the First World War, we see that “liberation” plays the role of a loud propaganda word designed to push emotions against the background of the unfolding world confrontation between the various imperialist blocs.

We see from Lenin’s analysis that communists approach each conflict concretely and at the same time dialectically, without denying either the principled possibility of just wars of national liberation under imperialism or the possible difference between the form and content of modern conflicts. 

But this does not fit into the worldview of the “KP” who states that it is either a global conflict or a “national liberation war”, and that there is no middle ground. In this, “KP” even contradicts itself in the very same article, as they consider the connections between the great imperialist powers and the participants in the conflict. 

Finally, the “KP” concludes:

“...the operation was not an expression of the current pattern of global division between the imperialist powers, but aimed at breaking this pattern and changing the international balance of power to Israel’s disadvantage.”

We have already seen that there are many different sides involved in the conflict: Hamas is being financed by many regional players and represents their interests, primarily those of Iran. Israeli capital represents the backbone of the US and the EU in the region.

Under these conditions, the weakening of the Israeli bourgeoisie objectively plays into the hands of Turkey, Iran, and its allies in the form of Russia and, above all, China – the main competitor of American capital. Even with some independence of action, the parties to this struggle are involved in the international conflict of the imperialist blocs.

The “KP” contradict themselves in literally the same sentence. Who benefits from “changing the international balance of power to Israel’s [with it to the U.S. and EU] disadvantage”? It is China and its allies. Who is involved in this struggle? The competing imperialist states. But they go on to claim… “the operation was not an expression of the current pattern of global division between the imperialist powers.” 

2.4. Thesis: “Communists should support everyone who fights Israel, including Hamas”

Using loud populist rhetoric, the “KP” tries to convince the reader that Palestine is such a world problem that it dwarfs all other problems facing communists: 

“Without a victory of the Palestinian liberation movement, neither the world-historical struggle of the peoples against the barbaric system of colonialism nor the victory over apartheid in South Africa and the USA is complete… What is happening in Palestine is not a war between two sides, both of which are to be rejected… but a colonial war over land, an ethnic cleansing of the country and a genocide. In a genocide there are no “two sides”, there are perpetrators and victims.”

There are moments that can only be described as hysterical: 

“To deny that the occupation of Palestine is a problem of the working class of the whole world is ultimately to deny that there are any common interests of the world working class at all (??? – PS)”.

This is done in an attempt to create a sense of the extraordinary nature of the current situation, in which something unprecedented is happening and in which communists must necessarily take the “good” side (the side of the “Palestinian movement”, i.e. Hamas) and unite for this struggle with all those who supposedly stand for “national liberation”. 

“Under these conditions, even a consistently communist force is compelled to cooperate on some points with other resistance organisations under these conditions… a certain degree of cooperation with Hamas is possible and should be sought in certain cases… Such a relationship with the bourgeois resistance forces… strengthens the prospects of the socialist revolution… The fundamental relationship of communists to this struggle does not depend on whether it is currently led by bourgeois or proletarian forces” – the “KP” claims, trying to prove that cooperation with Islamic fundamentalists only benefits the communists.

Behind the loud words about the international struggle, the world importance of Palestine, the world working class, and alliances, the “KP” failed to see that:

– Firstly, there is no “consistent communist force” in Palestine itself, nor is there a Communist Party, a trait that Palestine shares with the majority of other countries in the world (including Germany);

– Secondly, as of now, the world communist movement does not represent any more or less unified, organized, and influential force in general. 

It is only possible to seriously discuss tactics and strategies of action, to make compromises and to “cooperate” if one is a force within politics. In the case of the communists, we can do so only if there is a significant organization at the national and international levels. 

Otherwise, what happens is not a compromise, but subordination, becoming an appendage of a stronger structure, and this is what all the capitalists are interested in now: in Gaza, in Israel, in Russia, in the EU countries, in China, etc. In the case of Gaza, an example is the supposedly “left” PFLP, which directly participated in the October 7 action. 

They go on to say:

“Comrades who recognise “dissociation” from Hamas as a precondition for any statement… do not understand…that Israel, or rather the Israeli monopoly bourgeoisie, is the main enemy of the Palestinian working class and people, and that in the struggle against this astronomically superior opponent, all the forces of the liberation movement are compelled to direct their weak forces against this enemy.”

According to the “KP”, Hamas is not only leading a national liberation movement but also fighting against the Israeli bourgeoisie. 

Specifying a “main enemy” (the Israeli bourgeoisie) against which “all the forces of the liberation movement [including Hamas and other bourgeois movements] are compelled to direct their weak forces” is in fact a tailist tactic, presenting Hamas as the “good side” and supporting any “anti-Israeli forces.” 

Framing the issue in this way leads to the support of other imperialist blocs. By making such statements, the “KP” directly contradicts the principles of proletarian internationalism and moves into the camp of social-chauvinists.

2.5. Thesis: “Leadership in the movement can only be achieved by working with Hamas”

In some places, the “KP” recognizes that the communists in Palestine must fight and condemn Hamas in order to remove it from its position. But then it stipulates that they must not weaken the movement as a whole, but on the contrary, actively participate in it, and that the struggle itself must take place exclusively in the sphere of economics and agitation: 

“In order to challenge Hamas for this leadership, there is no other way for communists than to be at the forefront of the resistance against the occupation. … It means not subordinating ourselves to Hamas and developing our own programme... It means fighting for economic reforms in the interests of the working class even where Hamas is in power, fighting for concessions for the impoverished masses, thereby spreading the idea of socialism and educating the masses.”

As we can see, the need for struggle is formally recognized. But how should it be conducted? The “KP” proposes to carry out the struggle without fighting:

“In order to challenge Hamas for this leadership, there is no other way for communists than to be at the forefront of the resistance against the occupation. This way does not function through criticism from outside, but only through the struggle within the resistance movement, taking care that the objective competition between different forces within the resistance movement does not weaken the resistance as a whole and thus only benefit the occupiers. If this were the case, it would discredit the communist programme in the eyes of the people.”

In the actual struggle, in the victories and defeats of the struggle, one side wins and the other loses. “Being in the vanguard of the resistance” actually means being in the vanguard of the Hamas resistance, where its leaders simply don’t let the communists “contest” anything.

The “KP” forgot that we are not talking about bourgeois democracy but about thousands of fundamentalist militants and their regime in a city completely under their control (plagued by humanitarian crisis and hostilities) and their handlers, from Iran or elsewhere. 

How does the “KP” imagine a struggle without a struggle, and a struggle which “does not weaken the resistance as a whole” at that? How do they envision the struggle of the disparate communists against Hamas, which not only pumps money from all sides and controls all activities in Gaza, but is also indirectly supported by Israel?

Such loud words as “not subordinating ourselves to Hamas and developing our own programme, our own struggles and our own demands” cover up the most common opportunism:

“It means fighting for economic reforms in the interests of the working class even where Hamas is in power, fighting for concessions for the impoverished masses, thereby spreading the idea of socialism and educating the masses.” 

Politically, the “KP” advises communists to support Hamas, sometimes throwing loud phrases “for show”, but in no way weakening the movement as a whole, and to work only in the economic sphere, seeking “concessions”. This is the program of relations with the Islamists that the “KP” has prepared for the communists in the region. The “KP” still dares to tell the communists that they should not “divide the resistance”.

But they failed to take into account that this is not the tactic of the Communists. The fallacy of this approach was demonstrated by Lenin. Take, for example, his work “What Is to Be Done?”:

“Martynovs and the other Economists continue to imagine that “by economic struggle against the employers and the government” the workers must first gather strength (for trade-unionist politics) and then “go over” – we presume from trade-unionist “training for activity” to Social-Democratic activity!” 

And what do we see now? According to the “KP”, since Hamas is objectively fighting for the progressive cause of national liberation, it is necessary to cooperate with them. At the same time, they must not be criticized in order not to weaken the movement. Because of their own weakness, the only thing left for the communists to do is to engage in economic struggle in the expectation that such struggle would somehow agitate the masses for socialism, and thus at some point in the future, the leadership of the entire movement will be taken over by the communists.

This logic represents a Menshevik conception, since communists are in fact invited to capitulate to the bourgeoisie and not challenge its domination.

“The Mensheviks, through Martynov, say that our revolution is bourgeois, that it is a repetition of the French Revolution, and since the French Revolution, as a revolution of the bourgeoisie, was led by the bourgeoisie, our revolution must be led by the bourgeoisie. “The hegemony of the proletariat is a harmful utopia...” “The proletariat must follow the extreme bourgeois opposition” – Stalin writes in the Preface to the Georgian edition of Kautsky’s pamphlet “The Driving Forces and Prospects of the Russian Revolution”. 

We read onwards from Stalin:

“In the opinion of the Mensheviks, the liberal bourgeoisie and its defenders, the kadets, cannot be called traitors to the present revolution; they are allies of the revolution. That is why the Mensheviks support them both in the elections and in the Duma. The Mensheviks insist that the class struggle must never overshadow the general struggle. That is why they call on the masses to “unite around the whole Duma, not just its revolutionary section.”

How telling it is that these words correlate with what the “KP” is suggesting:

“Dividing the resistance on the basis of ideological differences, despite the unity in the strategic goal of shaking off colonial oppression, is sectarianism and only benefits the rulers who will do everything to promote and deepen such divisions.”

Just like the Mensheviks, the “KP” proposes not to overshadow the common struggle (together with Hamas, together with Palestinian Islamic Jihad**, etc.) against the “main enemy” – Israel. Similarly, they propose to unite around “the whole movement” instead of defending the communist position and opposing the growing popularity of the bourgeois forces.

Another curious point is how “KP” characterizes Fatah and the PLO it leads. According to the “KP”, it is not Hamas but Fatah, which controls barely a third of the West Bank enclave, that is the main problem:

“...communists find the worst condemnations for Hamas, but treat their main rival, Fatah, with kid gloves... Despite everything that is problematic and worthy of criticism about Hamas, Fatah is by far the bigger problem for the Palestinian liberation struggle.”

It is not hard to guess that these loud words speak for Hamas, which expelled Fatah from Gaza and has been seeking a foothold in the West Bank for 15 years. Without defending Fatah in any way, we see that these organizations are not comparable in size and influence, but KP insists on calling Fatah “a bigger problem” than Hamas, which is able to maintain tens of thousands of fighters.

Starting with accusations against the opponents of Hamas, especially against the conscious communists who refuse to support the bourgeois point of view and keep silent about the Islamic fundamentalists, the “KP” finally gives a platform to support Hamas, to cooperate with it and thus engage in tailism, moving to defend the positions of the group of capitalists behind Hamas (Iran, Turkey, China, Russia).

Moreover, this position also means support for the Israeli bourgeoisie, which is interested in the existence of this organization as a permanent source of tension that allows it to strengthen its power in Israel, to strengthen nationalism, justify the growth of the monopolies and the military-industrial complex, to divert the attention of the Israeli workers and to support the imperialist aspirations of the Western bloc as a whole and the United States in particular. As we have seen above, this is acknowledged by representatives of the Israeli state itself.

Their whole article was written for this purpose. While formally recognizing that Hamas and its allies are bourgeois organizations and that communists must fight their influence – but in a strictly limited economist fashion – “KP” actually defends this organization throughout the article. Since the “Islamic Resistance Movement” is for Palestinian independence and against Israel, it must unconditionally be supported even if it opposes the communists in the future – this is the logic of the “KP”.

“That’s right, don’t interfere in our movement with your communist agenda, rather concentrate on words about economic struggle, shout louder about Zionism, colonialism, the West, and the USA, and support us with your theoretical maneuvers so that we are not prevented from collecting money and spreading our influence,” – this would be the likely response to such people by Hamas.

Such “recommendations” from the “KP” hinder the establishment of communist work in the region. Israeli communists are encouraged to support terrorists and justify their provocations. This gives the Israeli bourgeoisie an excuse to ban and massacre communists under wartime conditions. Communists in Palestine are invited to go and support Hamas to the point of volunteering for armed struggle on their side, i.e., to become free soldiers in the service of the capitalists.

The “KP” accuses its opponents of “denying the struggle” under the guise of opposing Hamas. The “KP” itself proclaims such a “recognition of the struggle” which amounts to supporting Hamas and suggesting that the communists should be a part of the bourgeois forces.

**The Taliban is recognized as terrorist in Russia, and its activities are prohibited on Russian territory.

III. The October 7 Attack

Despite the long history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the current escalation dates back to the 7th of October, 2023, when the “Islamic Resistance Movement” and its allies announced the start of operation "Al-Aqsa Storm”. 

The “KP” in its material pays much attention to the justification of support and cooperation with Hamas, and accusations of Zionism and “settler colonialism” towards Israel. Still, for some reason, they hesitated to evaluate the events of 7 October and the following days: “We do not want to evaluate this action from a tactical point of view for the liberation struggle, to what extent it has benefited it or not.” 

They are not the only ones to do so. As we have already pointed out in our material, for example, such organizations as the Communist Party of Greece and the Communist Party of Turkey issued statements condemning Israel in the very first days after the beginning of the current conflict, but there was no assessment of Hamas and the October 7 attack. 

Nor do we see any assessment in the final documents of the “International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties” held in Izmir on 20–22 October 2023, which was almost entirely devoted to the war in Gaza. In the final declaration on Palestine there is a lot said about Israel and “solidarity with the Palestinian people”, but absolutely nothing about the role of Hamas in escalating the conflict. Finally, in an interview with Politsturm in December 2023, the leader of the Communist Party of Sweden also refrained from assessing the 7 October attack.

However, “KP” goes further. In the spirit of bourgeois propaganda, “KP” not only keeps silent about Hamas, but also tries to create the impression that the current conflict was started by Israel, characterizing it like this: “The genocidal war that Israel unleashed in Gaza in October”.

This silence is all the more incomprehensible because in the article “The War in the Middle East” we analyzed the background of this conflict and its consequences for the parties in the short term. 

Let us concentrate on the most important points.

3.1. Preparation and Goals of the Operation

We find information that Hamas had been preparing for October 7 in a long and systematic manner. Tensions had been rising in the region for months before the events of October 7. 

After the conflict began, it became clear that the tactics and techniques used in the “Al-Aqsa Storm” (maneuvers, hostage-taking, etc.) had been practiced for several years, and that the IDF was aware of the increased militant activity but refused to take any action.

Contributing factors were the worsening humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, the political conflict in Israel which called into question the existence of the Netanyahu government, and the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Several countries warned of a possible escalation, and Israeli intelligence officials pointed to Israel’s lack of preparedness for possible attacks.

The operation was timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the 1973 war. In addition to loud proclamations of “continuing the revolution”, Hamas leaders claimed that the conflict was caused by threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the continued blockade of Gaza, and expressed dissatisfaction with the rapprochement between Arab countries and Israel. This development was welcomed by those who have traditionally supported Hamas, including Iran, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries of the “Islamic world.” 

Tactically, the “operation” was a militant raid designed for surprise and lightning speed. In addition to Hamas, support and manpower were provided by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad**, the “leftist” PFLP, and DFLP, as well as several smaller groups.

Capturing territory or population centers for a long period was not their aim. That would be almost impossible, since the well-armed Israel Defence Forces (IDF), supported by Americans and Europeans, are capable of deploying hundreds of thousands of troops, have a strategic advantage, and can push back disparate militant groups not designed for open combat. 

As subsequent events showed, this indeed was the case: after recovering from the initial onslaught, within a couple of days, the IDF pushed the militants back into Gaza and then launched a full-scale offensive, bombing the city and occupying most of the Strip. 

This was a predictable outcome: despite some innovative techniques (massive use of drones to destroy heavy equipment, stealthy movement through a network of tunnels, etc.), militant formations cannot effectively confront a heavily armed regular army with modern weapons, sophisticated logistics, and consistent experience of fighting in the area.

3.2. Terrorism and “Revolutionary Violence”

Since the militants could not capture or hold any large areas for objective reasons, their main goals were to wreak havoc, disrupt infrastructure, and take as many hostages as possible in order to exchange them for Palestinian prisoners. According to some reports, the attack involved many militants from more than a thousand prisoners that Israel exchanged for one IDF soldier in 2011.

More than 700 civilians were killed during the attack, including about 360 killed during the raid on a music festival. After some time, videos appeared in which the militants took hostages, shot civilians, and finished off the wounded. All this stands in stark contrast to the hypocritical statements of Hamas, which claims that there have only been “accidental cases” of civilian killings.

In this regard, it is curious – yet disturbing – to see how people who call themselves communists defend Islamic fundamentalists to the bourgeois media and other communists.

The “KP” argues that since what is unfolding in the Gaza Strip is not a war but a genocide, a “colonial war”, where there is an aggressor (Israel) and a victim (the Palestinians and Hamas), “makes no sense at all to equate the chauvinism of Palestinian groups with Israeli chauvinism”. This is how the “KP” discovered the gradations of chauvinism: some chauvinists are better than others; some chauvinists should be condemned and others should be supported.

Where else have you seen communists justify the murder of civilians by Islamists?

“What drives Hamas is not the desire to exterminate as many Jews as possible, but the struggle against Zionism and its state...Hamas’s 2017 charter (unlike its outdated 1988 charter) makes an effort to distinguish the struggle against Zionism from the struggle against Judaism, and also explicitly rejects anti-Semitism.[22] There is no plausible argument for dismissing these formulations as pure duplicity” – the “KP” argues, as if one excludes the other.

On the contrary, the connection between them is confirmed by both “Charters” (remember the recognition of Palestinian Arabs as the only “Palestinians” in Article 4 of the 2017 “Charter”) and by the political practice of terror against civilians. The “KP” continues:

“It follows from the logic of this struggle that Hamas fighters sometimes kill Israeli civilians – but not because they are Jews per se, but because they are citizens of the state with which Hamas is at war.”

This is how terrorism is justified: civilian casualties are acceptable simply because they are “citizens of the state with which Hamas is at war”. 

All this despite the well-documented facts: more than 700 civilians were killed (among them 36 children), and almost 250 people were taken hostage. At the moment, about 70 people remain hostages, including the elderly and children. The vast majority of the people killed on October 7 and taken hostage were not capitalists, bourgeois officials or soldiers. They were civilians. 

Citizens of other countries also became victims: among those killed and taken hostage were citizens of Argentina, Germany, China, Russia, the USA, Thailand, France and other countries. What will German “KP” say in response to information about the murder of, for example, Shani Luk, who is also a resident of Germany? That she was a representative of an “enemy state”? Or that her death was justified by the “interests of the struggle”? 

Such an answer does not correspond to the communist position. Such logic is a hypocritical defense of capitalist war crimes and is no different from the arguments of bourgeois propaganda, both Western and Eastern. “The IDF is also bombing the citizens of Gaza not because they are Palestinians, but because they support Hamas, with whom Israel is in a state of war,” the bourgeois media will answer.

Such logic is not only unacceptable to communists, but it essentially amounts to supporting the capitalists (which the “KP” accuse their opponents of). According to the “KP”, such sacrifices are quite “logical” because we are talking about an “enemy state”.

Such reasoning, however, only deprives Israeli communists of support among workers and exposes them to persecution by the bourgeois state.

The communist position of condemning civilian deaths does not come from bourgeois pacifism and sentimentalism. In accordance with the position of internationalism and workers’ brotherhood, communists must oppose false “pragmatism” and the evaluation of the lives of workers of different nations as “more” or “less” important for the struggle. 

At the time of writing, it is estimated that about 35,000 people have died in Gaza, including more than 13,000 children. More than 78,000 people have been injured. Almost two million people have become refugees. These crimes are the responsibility of the bourgeois government of Israel and the ruling capitalist class, led by the dollar millionaire Netanyahu. 

However, the death of even one Palestinian worker is no reason to call for support for Islamic fundamentalists, just as the death of one Israeli worker should not lead to support for Israeli capital.

The position of condemning the crimes of the IDF and covering up the crimes of Hamas is a one that the Israeli bourgeoisie finds favorable to itself, as it discredits the communists and the left inside the country. Instead of distancing themselves from terrorism and Islamic radicals, putting forward independent slogans of the struggle against the war and the struggle for Palestine without Hamas, advancing their line and policy, the communists of Palestine and Israel are turned into supporters and executors of the slogans of social-chauvinists: “fight for any kind of Palestine, denounce Israeli attacks only and justify the casualties among non-Palestinians”.

This is used by the Israeli government and Israeli nationalists, presenting the communists as agents of Hamas.

No matter what lies are spread by Western imperialists and their media, communists must not stoop to supporting the murder of civilians and the taking of hostages by Islamic radicals.

3.3. Operation Results 

As a result of this Hamas raid and the IDF’s subsequent retaliatory strikes, tens of thousands of people have been killed in Gaza and hundreds of thousands have become refugees. The Gaza Strip lies in ruins and is experiencing a humanitarian catastrophe beyond anything that has gone before. 

At the same time, despite the Israeli government’s declarations of war “until the destruction of Hamas and the release of all hostages,” none of these tasks have been accomplished: the destruction of Gaza has not resulted in the elimination of militants, and a significant number of hostages continue to be held captive.

“Al-Aqsa Storm” has once again exposed the inability of the bourgeois state to effectively confront terrorism: the huge sums of money that constantly go to fund the military and security forces have not been able to prevent this attack. 

The provocative action of Hamas, aimed at intimidation and hostage-taking rather than national liberation, made the work of communists in the region more difficult and did not benefit the workers of Palestine and Israel. 

3.4. Who Benefits From the Gaza Conflict?

Hamas. After the attack on Israel, financial support for Hamas increased dramatically and, in the first months of the war alone, amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. Leaders of Arab and Muslim countries came out in support of the “resistance”, which led to a sharp cooling of their relations with Israel (which was one of the goals of the operation). Hiding behind tens of thousands of Gazans, Hamas created an image of “freedom fighters” and “martyrs” in the eyes of millions of people, increasing its influence.

Capitalists of Israel. Before the conflict, the Israeli government was in a political crisis. Its popularity was extremely low and the opposition was growing. In the spring of 2023, there was a general political strike in Israel aimed at dismissing the Netanyahu government. 

What do we see after October 7? Like a lifeline, this attack helped Netanyahu to make the government, which until very recently had been deprived of the trust of the Israeli society, the center of national unity and once again confirm the correctness of allocating huge sums of money for military needs.

Israel announced mobilization and the formation of a “national unity government”. The Israeli media began distributing patriotic videos of the mobilization of reservists, for whom they even sent planes to European countries. As with other imperialist wars, the influence of nationalist and chauvinist rhetoric in the general public increased dramatically. 

Thanks to the October 7 action, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was able to boost his ratings for a time. However, just three months after Israel’s retaliatory aggression began, his support has fallen sharply. In May 2024, protests against the government restarted, now backed by demands for early elections and the release of hostages. Despite the human cost and reputational damage, the Israeli bourgeoisie was able to temporarily divert attention from the government instability. 

Capitalists of Arab and Muslim countries. We have already mentioned above that almost all the leaders of the “Islamic world” supported Hamas. They tried to strengthen their positions not only inside their countries, obscuring class contradictions with loud words about “Islamic solidarity” and chauvinism towards the Jewish population, but also outside, trying to play on the contradictions between the U.S., Israel, and other countries in the region. In Turkey, for example, President Erdogan hastened to raise his popularity with populist rhetoric against Israel. At the same time, Turkey continues to ensure the transit of Azerbaijani oil to Israel.

Qatar has offered its mediation, maneuvering between the U.S., Israel, and Arab countries, and Saudi Arabia is also maneuvering between the U.S. and China.

Chinese capital and pro-Chinese bloc countries. The bombing of Gaza has seriously damaged the reputation of Israel, a state dependent on the Western bloc, and thus weakened the influence of the United States and the European Union, the main competitors of Chinese imperialism.

As we wrote earlier, the trade route bypassing China’s “New Silk Road” was supposed to pass through Israel. Despite its “anti-Western neutrality” position and soft pro-Palestinian rhetoric, China has continued its trade with Israel and brought its import of Israeli goods to record levels in early 2024. Commercial traffic in the Israeli port of Haifa is controlled mainly by the Chinese capital.

In March 2024, the Yemeni Houthis, who are strongly anti-Israeli, announced that they would not bombard Chinese and Russian merchant ships passing through the Red Sea. 10% of all world trade passes through the waters of that sea. At a summit with the leaders of the UAE, Bahrain, Tunisia, Egypt, and other Arab countries in Beijing in May 2024, China called on the Arab states to strengthen cooperation with China in trade, energy, and health care.

As we can see, the Chinese imperialists have used this conflict to weaken their rivals and promote their interests in the region.

Russian capital. Russian government officials have repeatedly expressed their support for Palestine, and this is eliciting favorable reactions among Russia’s partners in Central Asia and the Middle East. For example, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova thanked Hamas for the release of two Russian hostages. However, Russia does not intend to spoil relations with Israel: the Russian ambassador to Israel publicly rejected accusations of supporting Hamas. Also, the war in Gaza allowed Western countries and the media to divert their attention from Ukraine to the story of Palestine. 

This situation also slowed down the processes of integration of Western countries and their cohesion as a bloc, which was strengthening based on opposition to Russia. This was expressed, for example, in the story of the International Criminal Court’s request for arrest warrants for the leaders of Israel and Hamas. The U.S. and Israel’s allies strongly opposed it. Previously, the ICC had issued an arrest warrant for the Russian president. 

The capitalists of Europe and the right and “left” parties they finance. Since the coronavirus pandemic, the European Union has entered a crisis phase. The Russian-Ukrainian issue united the EU countries for a while, but this effect was short-lived. The ongoing economic crisis and its consequences have led to the fact that the approval rating of EU policies among the European population in 2024 was lower than in 2022.

The events of October 7 and the Israeli counter-offensive have become another factor for division within European politics. In the run-up to the European elections, representatives of both the right and “left” opposition to the ruling parties were quick to take advantage of this.

The far-right used the Gaza conflict to criticize the actions of their governments and the EU and to increase anti-migrant and pro-Israeli rhetoric. Similarly, the European-wide farmer protests have been used to criticize the EU’s agricultural policies, which have reduced the incomes of European farmers. As the elections to the European Parliament and in France have shown, the far-right has seriously strengthened its position in Europe, especially in Germany and France, the leading EU countries. 

In turn, social-democrats, social-chauvinists, and various far-left radicals in opposition to the ruling parties used the inconsistent position of European countries on the war in Gaza to increase their support.

“La France Insoumise” – a coalition of French broad-leftists – was able to win huge support among Muslim voters by making a pro-Palestinian stance a key element of its campaign for both the European Parliament and the French Parliament. Adding to this the formation of a “New Popular Front” against the growing influence of the far-right, “La France Insoumise” and the even broader political coalition of Social-Democrats, “Greens”, and Eurocommunists it led was able to win the French parliamentary elections.

In the last parliamentary elections in the UK, the center-left Labour Party came to power. The Conservatives suffered a huge defeat due to economic and political issues, one of which included the treatment of Gaza and Israel. 

On the one hand, the right-wing Reform Party was sharply anti-migrant, and it drew away part of the conservative electorate, preventing Conservative Party candidates from gaining a sufficient majority of votes. Together with the party’s unpopularity amid the crisis of the last few years, this allowed the Labour Party to win in most constituencies despite a moderate vote difference. The Labour Party received 9,679,417 votes and 411 seats, while the Conservative Party received 6,827,311 votes and only 121 seats.

Ultra-Palestinian rhetoric also allowed some candidates to increase their percentage of the vote. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, after his election victory as an independent candidate, noted the importance of taking a position on the war in Gaza. 

In March of this year, George Galloway, a former Labour MP who leads the opportunistic “Workers Party of Britain”, won a by-election for Parliament. Galloway built his campaign on sharply pro-Palestinian rhetoric. Addressing the leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, who has repeatedly come out in support of Israel, Galloway said: “Keir Starmer - this is for Gaza.”

In the results of the last election, he lost his seat, only slightly behind the Labour candidate: 32.8% versus Galloway’s 29.2%. Many other WPB candidates were also one step away from victory. 

The so-called “Workers’ Party of Britain”, which won 200,000 votes in this election, is supported, like Galloway, by the social-chauvinist “Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)”. This organization is one of the founders of the international association of social-chauvinists called “World Anti-Imperialist Platform”. The vice-chairman of “CPGB-ML” Joti Brar was elected deputy leader at the first congress of the “WPB”.

As we can see, the events of October 7 and the ensuing war in Gaza were used by all the capitalists to strengthen their positions and fight their competitors. 

Hamas, supported by Iranian capitalists – allies of Chinese and Russian capital – planned and carried out the action on October 7. Given the constant tension in the region and numerous previous conflicts, this operation inevitably led to a counter-attack by Israel, which in turn led to huge casualties among the civilian population of Gaza. 

The question of the attitude towards these events led to growing disagreements among Western (American and European) capitalists. A wave of criticism of the inconsistent position of Western imperialism led to the growth of popularity of both the right and the “left” opposition, including those oriented towards Russia and China.

At the same time, the bourgeoisie of the Arab countries, China, and the pro-Chinese bloc (Iran, Russia, and their allies) acted in solidarity and strengthened their influence. Unlike the capitalists, the workers of various countries, especially Palestine and Israel, were split and fell under the stream of chauvinistic propaganda from both sides and were drawn into the struggle between the imperialists.

This once again confirms the fallacy of KP’s claim:

“it is not at all the case that China, Russia and the USA are clearly on opposite sides with regard to Palestine... the operation was not an expression of the current pattern of global division between the imperialist powers, but aimed at breaking this pattern and changing the international balance of power to Israel’s disadvantage.”

3.5. The Communist Position and the October 7 Attack

The pretext for the war in Gaza and the death of tens of thousands of civilians at the hands of the IDF was the “action” of the Islamic radicals Hamas on October 7, 2023. However, many communists avoided defining a clear position concerning both sides of the conflict.

As we have seen earlier, the position of the “KP” is to hush up the role of Hamas in this escalation under the pretext of their criticism by the bourgeois media and to create a theoretical platform for cooperation between the communists and this organization.

The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) takes a similar position. The article of the International Department of the Central Committee of the KKE, “Short answers to current ideological-political questions concerning the Israeli attack and massacre against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip” also points out that Hamas has popular support and cannot be condemned, because by fighting against this organization, Western capitalists are covering up the deaths of Palestinian residents:

“The KKE is well aware that for several decades the concept of terrorism has been used by the bourgeois classes and imperialist powers to promote their anti-popular plans and to justify imperialist interventions and wars… Moreover, the bourgeois propaganda lumps together organizations like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban**, which were created, backed and armed by the imperialists for their own purposes before they lost control over them, with forces like Hamas, which came first in the 2006 elections in the Gaza Strip. This fact proves that this bourgeois power, for various reasons related to the violence of the Israeli occupation and the weaknesses of the action of other political forces in the Gaza Strip, has been supported by the popular forces fighting for the liberation of Palestine. The KKE has opposing ideological, political and philosophical views with this political-military organization. However, it will never allow the mass bombing of Gaza and the killing of thousands of small children, allegedly carried out for the elimination of Hamas...”

Both the “KP” and the KKE base their evasive position on Hamas on the assertion that the communists are dealing with a “liberation movement” that is generally denigrated by the capitalists, or with the “people of Palestine” whose interests require the communists to remain silent about the Islamic fundamentalists.

In our opinion, hushing up the role of the “Islamic Resistance Movement” and trying to avoid assessing this organization under the pretext of the danger of solidarity with bourgeois propaganda actually leads to the support of bourgeois propaganda and contributes to the denigration of the communists.

Workers of all countries, both conscious and unconscious, see the extensive coverage of the war in Gaza in the bourgeois media and want to know the position of the communists. Since Hamas’ participation in this conflict, the murder of civilians and the taking of hostages are fully confirmed facts, the communists are faced with the question of their attitude toward this side.

This can only be done by explaining the complexity of the situation, exposing both sides of the conflict and their interest in escalation, showing the lies and hypocrisy of the capitalists of both camps and not falling into the trap of supporting one of them. Only in this way can internationalism be consistently defended, the broad masses of workers educated and new cadres attracted to the ranks of communist organizations. 

However, instead, communists are told to either to keep silent about the role of Hamas and avoid a specific assessment of the “Palestinian independence movement” under the pretext that this helps bourgeois propaganda, going so far as to defend and justify their crimes, or to focus on the background of the conflict and the fact that the war in Palestine did not begin now, but at the moment of the declaration of Israel’s independence.

Let us turn, for example, to the above-mentioned KKE article, in which communists are directly advised to refrain from assessing Islamic fundamentalists and to focus on the “struggle for liberation”:

“...we give no credence to the evidence fabricated by the Israeli authorities about the “atrocities of Hamas”, and much of this fake news has already been debunked... The long-standing Israeli occupation, oppression and apartheid can indeed lead to great anger, retaliation and excesses.... It is crucial for workers to focus on the causes and nature of the war, on the tragic consequences of the long-standing Israeli occupation and on the massacre of the Palestinian people who are fighting and have the right to fight for their liberation by all means.”

Some “communists” go even further: in May of this year, “KP” published an interview with a social-chauvinist group calling itself the “Communist Party of Palestine”, in which it not only speaks positively of Hamas but also calls for some kind of “revolutionary violence”:

“Our evaluation of Hamas is based on its resistance to occupation, which is positive... The communists in occupied Palestine follow all forms of struggle, first and foremost revolutionary violence... Their revolutionary violence is against an oppressive minority in favor of an oppressed majority whose rights are being forfeited.”

We would like to ask such “communists”: for what reason do they declare the intentional murder of civilians, including women and children, to be “revolutionary violence”? Especially when it is clear that there is no ongoing “revolution”. Talk of “revolutionary violence” and other similar ultra-“left” phrases about “urban guerrilla warfare”, “direct action”, etc. are the rhetoric of ultra-“left” radicals, anarchists, and Maoists, but not communists. 

How strong is the “CP” of Palestine to say such things? In practice, such words mean a call to join Hamas and their structures. We must not forget that these structures are not some kind of bourgeois-democratic coalition: they are Islamic fundamentalists, famous for repression and murder.

Focusing on the victims of the aggression of the Israeli bourgeoisie without pointing out the role of Hamas as an instrument of the bourgeoisie and justifying Hamas actions means the capitulation of the communists to the bourgeois propaganda of both Western and Eastern capital.

Both camps of imperialism seek to distract the attention of the masses from pressing problems and to influence emotions, defending “their” side as progressive, thereby obscuring the actual course of the conflict.

A clear example of this is the struggle around the concept of “Zionism”, the very use of which in modern communist agitation is currently questionable.

Nowadays, this term is vague and speculative. It is widely known that in the 20th century, it was used by fascist forces to justify the extermination of the Jewish people. It was also used in the Soviet Union, but the communists used it very carefully, in the context of criticism of Jewish nationalism and chauvinism.

It is also currently used by the right for anti-Semitic attacks. At the same time, Western capitalists, trying to portray themselves as the “good side”, provide a theoretical basis for the assertion that the “fight against Zionism” means anti-Semitism and the fight against Jews in general.

Representatives of the bourgeoisie of Arab countries, in turn, as we see in the example of the “Charters” of Hamas, also use this term in the context of anti-Semitism, thus trying to present their intentions in a distorted form and justify terrorist tactics.

It is noteworthy that at the end of October 2023, pogroms took place in Makhachkala, the capital of the Republic of Dagestan, a federal subject of the Russian Federation. Under slogans of fighting Zionists and "preventing Jewish refugees from the occupied lands from entering the country" a crowd of local residents seized the airport under the pretext of "searching for Jews" and surrounded a bus with passengers who had arrived from Israel by plane. Most of the passengers were women with children. Anti-Semitic unrest also occurred in several other cities in the Caucasus region.

The “KP” itself repeatedly points out that this term is used for propaganda purposes:

“Zionism and the mendacious accusation of anti-Semitism leveled against anyone who criticises Israel are, especially in Germany, a powerful weapon of the capitalists and the reaction... By associating Jews with the State of Israel, even though there are millions of Jews who are not Israelis and often not Zionists, the prevailing propaganda in Germany and elsewhere contributes to the fact that rejection of Israel and its policies can actually turn against Judaism.”

Communists should think about the advisability of using this term at the present time, due to the danger of being drawn into the capitalist camp. It is necessary to call things by their proper names.  Since Zionism has always meant Jewish nationalism and chauvinism to the Communists, it is necessary to emphasize these concepts in their propaganda. Communists oppose these views, and not abstract “Zionism”, a struggle against which in reality often serves as a disguise for anti-Semitism. 

Communists have always fought and must fight against nationalism and chauvinism of any nationality – whether Jewish, German, Arab or any other.

“If a Ukrainian Marxist allows himself to he swayed by his quite legitimate and natural hatred of the Great-Russian oppressors to such a degree that he transfers even a particle of this hatred, even if it be only estrangement, to the proletarian culture and proletarian cause of the Great-Russian workers, then such a Marxist will get bogged down in bourgeois nationalism. Similarly, the Great-Russian Marxist will be bogged down, not only in bourgeois, but also in Black-Hundred nationalism, if he loses sight, even for a moment, of the demand for complete equality for the Ukrainians, or of their right to form an independent state.

The Great-Russian and Ukrainian workers must work together, and, as long as they live in a single state, act in the closest organisational unity and concert, towards a common or international culture of the proletarian movement, displaying absolute tolerance in the question of the language in which propaganda is conducted, and in the purely local or purely national details of that propaganda. This is the imperative demand of Marxism. All advocacy of the segregation of the workers of one nation from those of another, all attacks upon Marxist “assimilation”, or attempts, where the proletariat is concerned, to contrapose one national culture as a whole to another allegedly integral national culture, and so forth, is bourgeois nationalism, against which it is essential to wage a ruthless struggle.” – Vladimir Lenin, Critical Remarks on the National Question.

The use of clear terminology changes the perception of communist agitation and facilitates its dissemination. In this particular case, the communists clearly indicate that they are not fighting against some abstract “Zionism”, by which each side – Western capitalists, Islamists, right and left radicals – understands what is beneficial to them, but against specifically Jewish nationalism, the Israeli bourgeoisie. 

However, instead of this, “KP” suggests that the communists use this term more actively in their agitation, and also justify the actions of Islamic radicals with it:

“Zionism is therefore a national blood-and-soil ideology that leaves the Palestinians with only the choice of resistance or destruction...What drives Hamas is not the desire to exterminate as many Jews as possible, but the struggle against Zionism and its state. It follows from the logic of this struggle that Hamas fighters sometimes kill Israeli civilians…”

Jewish nationalism is used by the Jewish bourgeoisie to advance its interests and strengthen its positions outside and inside Israel. By inciting nationalism, they seek to weaken capitalist contradictions, just as any other bourgeoisie does.

Hamas does the same, trying to unite all the residents of Gaza in the mainstream politics of nationalism and chauvinism. This is all the more important because there are manifestations of disagreement among the masses with the policy of the “Islamic Resistance Movement” in Gaza.

We admit that openly speaking out against Hamas can be dangerous for Palestinian communists, against whom this organization can easily unleash terror. In this regard, it is all the more necessary for international communists to condemn and expose this organization, and not slide into supporting it under the slogans of fighting “Zionism”.

However, this is not happening. The working class of Palestine and Israel is becoming a victim of the Palestinian and Israeli capitalists. The communists, instead of giving the correct internationalist position, justify one of the sides through reservations and concessions. Communists of the past called such tactics social-chauvinist, and these tactics cannot be considered correct. 

The victims of the IDF strikes on Gaza are being exploited to advocate for ending the conflict at all costs. This includes supporting groups that claim to fight “for the Palestinian people”, such as Hamas and its affiliated forces. By taking such a stance, the communists effectively support the “Islamic Resistance Movement” and the Iranian capitalists backing them, who are aligned with the imperialists of Russia and China. 

This behavior benefits Western bourgeois propaganda. The capitalists see that the communists are avoiding defining a clear position and some are going so far as to openly support Hamas, and they present this behavior in a way that is favorable to them.

In Switzerland, for example, the Trotskyists from the “International Marxist Tendency” (which recently renamed itself the “Revolutionary Communist International”) attracted the attention of the bourgeois media and authorities for their ultra-radical agitation in schools and universities under the slogan “Intifada until victory” in the context of supporting terrorism.

In Austria, the media responded to similar speeches with the headline “Austrian Communists Defend Terrorist Murderers”.

“KP”, as we have seen above, pursues a similar line, supporting the abstract movement in words and expressing support for the actions of the Islamists in practice. Such a position means solidarity of communists at the international level with:

– Trotskyists and ultra-“left” radicals, whose propaganda pursues the goal of attracting maximum attention, mobilizing the crowd, and replenishing their own ranks;

– social-chauvinists and social-democrats, who also use this tactic to increase their popularity among specific layers of the population (primarily migrants) and advancement into the parliaments of bourgeois states;

– Islamists and the forces that support them, because it is precisely in their favor that loud phrases about condemning Israeli aggression and supporting Palestine speak, while the role of Hamas and the Arab and Muslim capitalists who stand behind it is completely ignored; 

– Iranian capitalists and the Chinese bloc that supports them, who, acting both from a position of “anti-Western neutrality” and with open support for Hamas, thereby strike a blow at the image of Western imperialism and increase their influence in their own countries and at the international level.

Ultimately, this tactic means betraying the interests of the working class, the principles of internationalism, and turning communists into extras for the imperialists.

This is all the more important because even the capitalists have seen the vulnerability in their positions since the end of last year and have begun to divert attention from defending Israel to its victims, calling for an end to hostilities and thereby increasing the split in their ranks.

The events of October 7 are a provocative action by Islamists, which must be condemned as having nothing to do with the struggle for Palestine. Various imperialist groups are involved in this conflict, and they are the ones who are the main beneficiaries of the war in Gaza.

Attempts to remain silent about this, to refrain from assessing it, or to support Hamas by various means (which is what “KP” is doing) mean a transition to the positions of the capitalists.

On the one hand, this tactic represents a capitulation to bourgeois propaganda and the degradation of communist positions to those of ultra-“left” radicals and Islamists, turning communists into an appendage of one of the imperialist groups.

On the other hand, it gives bourgeois governments a serious pretext for unleashing anti-communist propaganda and potential repression, exposes communists to criticism from ultra-right parties, splits the working class, and strengthens right-wing sentiments.

**The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are recognized as terrorist organizations in Russia, and their activities are prohibited on Russian territory.

IV. Communist Tactics and Strategy

4.1. Critique of the Theory of “Settler Colonialism”

In the theoretical sphere, the “KP” is constantly oscillating between the right and the left: constant concessions to social-chauvinists, Chinese capital and its allies, opportunism, and accommodation to coexist with ultra-“left” radical rhetoric, support for Islamic fundamentalism under the slogan of “struggle for liberation” and reverence for spontaneous movements.

However, revisionism is not alien to them either. For example, throughout the article “KP” repeatedly mentions “settler colonialism”:

“Settler colonialism is a particular form of colonialism: It involves not only taking possession of another country or territory, but also systematically settling a ‘master race’ with the aim of living there permanently and building a society.”

This term plays a major role because it underpins the assertion that Israel represents the most reactionary state:

“Israel is not an “ordinary” nation-state like Germany or Italy… Palestine remains under a settler-colonial regime and barbaric national oppression… The struggle of communists should therefore be directed against the settler-colonial apartheid state as a particularly reactionary, despicable form of capitalist oppression… Israel is a colonial and apartheid state.”

This attitude justifies the need to support Hamas at all costs: because if we are dealing with a “particularly reactionary [practically “the most reactionary”, on the level of the Nazis] form of capitalist oppression,” and if the conflict in Gaza is not a conflict at all, but “an ethnic cleansing of the country and a genocide,” where “there are no “two sides”, there are perpetrators and victims,” then the seemingly logical conclusion is the need to support any resistance to such an aggressor.

The “KP” claims that Israel is a state of “settler colonialism”, where all or almost all of its inhabitants are a solid reactionary mass, including the working class, who are all “bribed”.

Formally, as in other cases, the “KP” stipulate that they oppose this idea:

“Sometimes we hear the argument that the working class or people in Israel are so closely associated with and benefit so much from settler colonialism that it is impossible to win them over to support the Palestinian liberation struggle… Can we label all or almost all Israelis as fascists and therefore enemies of the international working class? Of course not.”

But in fact they effectively lead to the conclusion that the Israeli working class is no less reactionary:

“There are probably few countries where such a large proportion of the population openly and shamelessly espouses fascist views, and where the chauvinist, racist incitement of the population in general is so advanced… There is, of course, a material basis for the chauvinist involvement of the Israeli working class: they live on land that was once forcibly stolen from the Palestinians… it pays for the land gains and privileges it has received from the colonial system with the strengthening of the class rule of its exploiters.”

However, Marxist-Leninists will not find such a concept in Marxist theory. What is the reason for this?

The fact is that the theory of “settler colonialism” emerged and developed in the 1970s and 1980s in Western bourgeois historical science, including various deviations from Marxism, such as the so-called Frankfurt School and “academic Marxists”, who published articles on this topic in the British journal New Left Review.

This theory absolutizes the conflict between the indigenous population and the settlers from the metropolis of the colonizing countries, who displace and destroy the indigenous population from the territory they occupy.

Politically, this theory is a petty-bourgeois vacillation that leads to the portrayal of the working class in some countries as “white chauvinists” in general, the rejection of the proletariat as a revolutionary force and its replacement by the “indigenous population”, the “global South”, the “third world”, etc.

It is noteworthy that this theory gained prominence alongside the rise of Maoism. One of the most famous works on this subject is the book “Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat” by the American Maoist J. Sakai, published in 1983. In his book, Sakai not only accuses American communists of imposing “semi-colonial thinking” on oppressed nationalities but also claims that Lenin contrasted the “pro-imperialist masses” and the “real masses” of the “Third World” (the peoples of Asia, Latin America, and Africa), presenting Lenin’s logic as a denial of the revolutionary character of workers in imperialist countries at all.

The theory of “settler colonialism” fits comfortably into the revisionist theories of the “three worlds” and the “struggle between the global North and the global South”. Unlike the concept of the “labor aristocracy”, which refers to the top layer of the working class bribed to subjugate the workers’ movement, the proponents of “settler colonialism” label all workers in the developed countries as bribed collaborators of the bourgeoisie and colonizers, living in a “colonial society” on land taken from indigenous peoples.

It is also important to note its role in anti-Soviet propaganda: using the processes of industrialization and development in certain Soviet republics (Central Asia, the growth of the Russian population in Donbas, which was part of the Ukrainian SSR), bourgeois propagandists declare the Soviet Union a “state of settler colonialism” and equate it with American and European capitalist states.

For example, Ronald J. Horvath in his work “A Definition of Colonialism” points out that the list of “settler colonialist” states includes not only the United States, Australia, and Canada, but also the Soviet Union:

“History provides us with relatively few examples where total extermination of the inhabitants of geographic entities occurred – among them… the extermination of the inhabitants of vast areas of America, Australia, Canada, and Tsarist and Communist Russia… The domination of Latin America, North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Asian part of the Soviet Union by European powers all involved the migration of permanent settlers from the European country to the colonies. These places were colonized.”

This is echoed by the ultra-“left” radicals of the “South/South Movement”:

“The abolition of private property and the market economy in the Soviet Union failed to eliminate colonial patterns of oppression, expropriation, physical and cultural violence against minorities, and racial hierarchies. The socialist economy and socialist governance perpetuated the very inequalities and colonial oppression that they claimed to eliminate.”

To portray the USSR as a state that is allegedly no better than capitalist states is a favorite tactic of ultra-“left” radicals, Trotskyists, anarchists, and social-democrats.

However, if we examine the views of the classics of Marxism-Leninism on colonialism, we find not only references to the plundering of colonies, not only to the cruelties of the bourgeois states masked by the rhetoric of “progress” and “civilization”, but also to instances of relative historical progress, without any whitewashing or justification of the capitalists.

For example, in a letter to Marx dated May 23, 1851, Engels, despite the classics’ hatred of the tsarist government, pointed to Russia’s progressive role in Central Asia:

“Russia, on the other hand, is truly progressive by comparison with the East. Russian rule… is civilizing for the Black and Caspian Seas and Central Asia, for the Bashkirs and Tatars.”

Earlier we have already quoted Lenin’s characterization of the American War of Independence as a war of national liberation. According to the widespread opinion among the Western left, the USA, being a “settler colonial state” and essentially a global hegemon, could not wage a war of national liberation and was already a reactionary entity at the time. 

Another argument against “settler colonialism” is that the movement of populations and the seizure or purchase of land for next to nothing was and remains an integral part of the initial accumulation of capital. Communists have always pointed out the exploitative nature of this process, which has not changed in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The abstract slogans of “land restitution” and “indigenous peoples” can be interpreted very broadly. The bourgeoisie has long known that property is a relative concept. It willingly uses the slogans of “return of land” and “liberation of illegally occupied territory” when it is necessary to justify another imperialist seizure.

The war in Gaza provides us with an example of this rhetoric: when Israel’s opponents argue that the land belongs to the Arabs, bourgeois propagandists friendly to Israel respond by pointing out that the Arabs have not always lived there, while the Israelis have lived there since ancient times. Similarly, European nationalists use anti-migrant rhetoric in defense of the “ancestral lands”.

Modern workers too know how relative the concept of property is, how easily everything can be bought and sold, and how quickly people move from one country to another in search of a better life.

It is impossible to imagine modern capitalism (i.e. imperialism) without land transactions and the constant movement of huge masses of people, without migration, without contact and interpenetration of different nationalities and cultures. The theory of “settler colonialism” leads to the idea that there is a “colonizing bourgeoisie” that seizes land, displaces indigenous peoples and exploits them, and that there is another, “good”, “national” bourgeoisie that supposedly does not do this.

In this context, the terms that “KP” uses like “colonial and apartheid state” are also questionable:

“The struggle of communists should therefore be directed against the settler-colonial apartheid state as a particularly reactionary, despicable form of capitalist oppression.”

Imperialism dominates the world in the 21st century. Israel is a regional imperialist and pursues its local imperialist expansion. To what end is “KP” coining terms to present Israel as an even more reactionary state?

A land grab is business as usual for capitalism and using it as a pretext to conjure up a new term is either an opportunistic ploy or another “invention” by illiterate people ignorant of Marxist theory. For example, like Israel, the U.S., and other Western imperialists, China is also promoting its enterprises, buying up ports “for 100 years” and even exporting its workers, creating diasporas.

 Communists explain these phenomena using standard terminology and without the invention of dubious terms that ultimately serve to revise Marxism and justify one of the imperialist blocs.

This framework provides a theoretical platform for social-chauvinists, ultra-“left” radicals, and Islamic radicals who advocate the idea of uniting all opponents of Western countries in the struggle against American hegemony.

The portrayal of the Israeli working class as completely (or almost completely) bribed by the capitalists and therefore “reactionary”, along with the recognition of the need to support an abstract “Palestinian movement” (while the real one is led by Islamists), leads, as discussed above, to the justification of terror against civilians under the guise of “struggle against the colonizers”. And this is despite the fact that about 20% of the Israeli population is Arab, and the Jewish population of Israel is also very diverse and is not as cohesive a "reactionary mass" as it is portrayed.

It is worth noting that while the “KP” does acknowledge the need to involve the Israeli working class in the struggle, only communists with powerful communist parties and a proven theory can transform an imperialist confrontation into a genuine liberation struggle.

For the communists in Palestine, as previously observed, the “KP” suggests that they should not fight for the creation of such organizations, but support Hamas, Islamists, and anti-Western capitalists.

For the communists in Israel, the KP suggests trying to attract workers by justifying terrorism, “revolutionary violence” and ultra-radical rhetoric about “colonial privileges”. Such methods hinder the unification of communists and doom them to failure.

The analysis and critique of "settler colonialism" as a revisionist theory must be expanded in the future. Acknowledging this, we can still clearly see that communists can easily counter this theory, that is being introduced into Marxism under the guise of words about a “national liberation struggle” in the hope that communists won’t notice.

The bourgeoisie tries to cover up many of the "unsightly" moments in the history of capitalism, which are connected with the robbery, exploitation and death of millions of people. While recognizing the need to point this out, as well as the disasters that the machinations of the capitalists bring to the broad masses of workers, communists must refrain from posing the question of "liberation" and "decolonization" in an abstract way.

In the context of this conflict, this means that communists must resist attempts to use the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the expansionism of the Israeli bourgeoisie to justify the actions of the capitalists on the opposing side. They must resist attempts to portray the current conflict as a struggle between “progressive forces” on the one side and “colonizers” on the other.

Without in any way justifying or covering up the policies of Israeli capital against the Palestinian workers, communists should in no way regard the Israeli workers as a solid reactionary mass. Even less should they use this as a justification for acts of terror by the opposite side.

“Settler colonialism” as a theory divides the working class and fosters the growth of petty-bourgeois radicalism and chauvinism. This “left”-leaning theory, like virtually any bias, will eventually lean right and lead to support for Hamas, Arab and Muslim capitalists, Iran, and ultimately, Chinese capital.

4.2. How the “KP” Harms the Communists 

After much talk about “concrete support for the struggle”, “KP” decided to move on to practical action.

Last October, a splinter organization of the “KP”, which continues to exist under the name “KO” (“Kommunistische Organisation”) and openly supports Russia and China, held a “Kommunismus Kongress”. This gathering was also attended by representatives of the pro-Hamas “Samidoun” (“Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network”), a self-proclaimed leftist organization.

“Samidoun” openly praised the October 7 action:

“The heroic Palestinian resistance opened a chapter of struggles of dignity and pride at dawn on October 7, 2023… As the Palestinian resistance confronts the occupying powers, it is crucial that internationalists everywhere raise their voices, mobilize and act to confront the US-led imperialist system, including the EU states, Britain and all complicit powers.”

According to some reports, this organization is affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which participated in the October 7 action, as noted above.

The bourgeois media covered it accordingly: “Communists support Hamas”, “Communists support anti-Semites”. Soon Hamas and Samidoun were banned in Germany by a decree of Chancellor Scholz, the German state security began to monitor the activities of the “KO”, and the Minister of the Interior threatened those cooperating with them with prosecution.

In this situation, both the “right-wing” “KO” and the “left-wing” “KP” (formerly also called “KO”) came out in defense of Samidoun.

“KO” issued a statement defending not only Samidoun but also Hamas, the PFLP, and even Palestinian Islamic Jihad**. 

The “KP” followed suit with a similar statement, and on top of that participated in a protest organised in defense of “Palestinian brothers and sisters”, referring to Samidoun and Palestine Solidarity in Duisburg.

4.3. How Should Communists Treat Such Actions? 

Supporting a structure closely linked to Islamists, to the extent of marching out when needed by them, chanting their slogans, and pushing their agenda, is a clear example of opportunism. It is also a complete betrayal of the working class by the “KP”.

When deciding on any public activity, communists must have a clear and concrete goal in mind. They must understand why they put themselves out there and draw attention to themselves.

It is all the more necessary to contemplate such actions in the face of the growing crisis of imperialism and increasing fascization, the weakness of the communist movement, and the lack of any means to support communists in the face of repression.

In many states, bourgeois rights and freedoms are being rapidly curtailed. Even in the most liberal bourgeois democracies, anti-communist laws are being passed. In the Baltic states, Hungary, and Poland, which are members of the European Union, both communists and communist agitation are legally banned.

To neglect security under these conditions is to lead the communists to defeat at a time when they do not even represent any serious force yet. In these circumstances, communists must think carefully about their actions and exercise the utmost caution so as not to expose themselves and their comrades in other countries.

This is especially important for communists in Germany, a country that has had a strong neo-Nazi underground since World War II. Two years ago, a right-wing coup attempt in Germany involving a former Alternative for Germany MP was thwarted. The recent European Parliament elections showed that the AfD is on the rise.

The communists in Germany, as in other countries, are as weak and fragmented as possible and do not represent a serious force at the moment. But, according to “KP”, they suddenly have to go out on demonstrations and chant slogans in support of Islamist organizations, discrediting themselves in front of the workers and attracting the attention of law enforcement agencies.

We would like to suggest to the participants of these organizations (“KO”, “KP” and other similar structures) to ask themselves: what is the purpose of such actions? Neither “KP” nor “KO” are mass communist organizations, yet they take part in such reckless activities and essentially become provocateurs.

These actions harm communists both in Germany and elsewhere, discredit them, and give grounds for expanding anti-communist repression.

4.4. Is the Position of the “KP” the Position of the Communists?

Let’s summarize. What does the “KP” offer to the communists:

1. Regarding Hamas – hypocritical silence on the history and role of this organization in provoking the current conflict, appeal to an abstract “liberation movement”, justification of terrorism, substitution of concepts, opportunistic tactics that lead to tailism, turning communists into agents of Iranian, Chinese, Russian, Turkish, etc. capitalists, solidarity with Hamas and direct support of Islamists.

2. Regarding the conflict in Gaza – covering up the role of Hamas and the October 7 attack organized by them, denying the role of the conflict as part of the international confrontation of imperialist groups, social-chauvinist formulation of the issue.

3. Regarding the international situation – dogmatism and revisionism at the same time, ignorance of Marxist theory, and a lack of understanding of the current tasks, mixed with ultra-revolutionary phrases.

It is impossible to call such a position a communist one.

With various confusing phrases, the “KP” justifies and supports Islamic radicals and their October 7 action and tries to force communists to do the same.

Numerous groups, platforms, and movements like to call themselves “communists” and place themselves at least on the level with Marx, who once wrote:

“In politics, a man may ally himself, for a given object, with the devil himself only he must be sure that he is cheating the devil, instead of the devil cheating him.”

From this, such “communists” conclude that one can cooperate with the enemies however and whenever one wants, and that specifically they themselves will definitely not be fooled.

“If it were wrong to accept capitalist help in any case, then we would also have to condemn the Bolsheviks for Lenin boarding the train to Petrograd with German support in 1917” – “KP” says.

Aside from the fact that the “KP” effectively equates Islamic fundamentalists with Lenin, this formulation of the problem is dogmatic, a perception of Marxist theory and the history of the communist movement without any analysis, a blind justification of actions ruinous for the communists.

“Politsturm” reminds “KP” that when referring to the actions of the classics, it is always necessary to look at specific conditions and circumstances. Vladimir Lenin was the leader of the most consistent revolutionary party in a country with a revolutionary situation.

Lenin’s passage through Germany has no relation to the current situation: the absolute absence of any real communist force in Gaza in 2024, and the calls of the “KP” for cooperation with (and in fact subordination to) Hamas. The slogans of the “KP” about “liberation” are lost in the huge flow of pro-Hamas propaganda, which is supported by Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing.

“The view, sometimes encountered in Germany, that the “Middle East conflict” “will not be solved by us in Germany”… should also be vehemently rejected. The colonisation of Palestine and the oppression of the Palestinian people is objectively a problem of the global working class… There is no basis for “excluding” the working class of certain countries from the commonality of class interests. To do so is to weaken the fighting power of the class, which is based precisely on its unity across all borders.” – the “KP” loudly declares.

This statement is pure populism, an attempt to arouse emotions in the readers.

It is also very indicative that this was written by an organization based in Germany, only a few thousand kilometers or 24 hours away from the very real, “classic” imperialist conflict: with trenches, a solid front line, hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides and the use of virtually all types of the armed forces.

The war in Palestine, for all its brutality and tens of thousands of civilians killed, remains a war of a large army against semi-regular militant formations. A war that is undoubtedly large, but still one of more than a dozen escalations taking place there regularly, while the other situation mentioned is a full-scale military conflict, now in its third year, with the threat of involving associated countries and escalating into a new world war with the use of nuclear weapons.

The problems of the workers of Palestine are as important as those of other proletarians, and they too must be addressed. Nobody denies that. But this problem will not be solved in Germany, it can only be solved in Palestine.

The fighting ability of a class is not based on being cannon fodder for the capitalists at the right moment, but primarily on its ability to behave as a class. The “KP”, on the other hand, wants the proletariat not to organize, but to rush to support just about anyone.

The communists now have neither the strength nor the means to influence this conflict. Under such conditions, it is essential to first make a correct assessment of the war in Gaza and those involved in it, to use this conflict to expose various kinds of opportunists, revisionists and evaders, to strengthen the communist position among the workers, to purify our ranks, and to intensify the work for the creation of genuine communist parties.

It is especially important for the communists not to fall into hysteria, not to follow the bourgeois media, but to analyze this conflict soberly, from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism. Otherwise, as we see, one can easily slip into supporting one of the groups of capital and become free cannon fodder for those who really lead and organize these movements.

**Palestinian Islamic Jihad is recognized as terrorist organization in Russia, and their activities are prohibited on Russian territory.

V. Tactics and Strategy of the Communists

5.1. What Should Be the Position of Communists?

On the question of national liberation wars under Imperialism. Without denying the possibility of such wars at the present time, communists must always take a concrete approach in assessing each current conflict: Who are the leading forces and parties in the conflict? Who supports them? Who benefits from the conflict? Communists must take into account not only the historical context but also the current international situation.

Given the domination of the bourgeois media and the weakness and fragmentation of the communist movement, the muddying of these issues and the attempts to hide the true situation in Gaza with talk of “popular support”, “aggressors and victims”, “independence” and “historical justice” will lead the communists to become an appendage of capital, to involve them in the struggle between the capitalists as an instrument of one of the camps.

Regarding the attitude towards Palestine. The actions of the “Islamic Resistance Movement” are not aimed at the liberation of Palestine but at its further enslavement by international capital.

Communists must strongly condemn the actions of Hamas, condemn terrorism and the intentionally provocative October 7 attacks that led to the deaths of workers in Palestine and Israel. Silencing, glossing over this issue, or supporting this action and the killing of civilians under various pretexts is directly opposed to the views of the communists and the interests of the current struggle and makes it easier for the capitalists to fight against communism.

Regarding the cooperation with Islamist organizations. Communists must openly distance themselves from Islamists, especially Hamas, which expresses the interests of the eastern group of capital, disguises its goals and intentions, and uses the death of civilians as a tool to increase its influence.

This does not mean denying Israel’s role in the conflict. On the contrary: communists must equally condemn the actions of the Israeli bourgeoisie and reject attempts to use the victims of October 7 to justify further violence against Gazans and the repression of communists.

Regarding agitation. Communists must make every effort to explain the true nature of the conflict, to identify the real sides involved, and to combat manifestations of chauvinism, nationalism, and racism. Attempting to achieve immediate goals by ignoring one side of the conflict leads to the discrediting and defeat of communists. We have addressed this in our earlier material:

“The real tasks of the communists and the working class boil down to an open struggle against chauvinism, racism and religious reaction on the part of both Israel and the Palestinian Islamists. Communists must oppose Israel’s militarism and hypocrisy, but they must also sharply disassociate themselves from the Islamists and condemn their actions.”

In the context of Palestine, our earlier analysis still holds true:

“Reactionary forces are involved on both sides in the conflict, pitting the working citizens of Israel and Palestine against each other, pursuing the goal of establishing their own domination in the region.

Behind each of the rival parties are imperialist powers with interests in this region… While supporting the genuine struggle of the Palestinians for a secular Palestine, communists must in every possible way resist attempts to turn this struggle into support for the Islamists. The blind and one-sided position of a number of “Marxist-Leninist” communist parties plays into the hands of the imperialists, simplifies and obscures the situation, and pushes workers towards the false position of supporting certain imperialist forces in the region.”

Regarding opportunism and revisionism. Communists must uphold their principles and oppose attempts to blindly follow spontaneous movements. This lure shows itself in the fear of criticizing Islamists and Hamas in the midst of the Gaza bombings. Communists must not subordinate themselves to the capitalists under the slogans of “national liberation”, which the latter propagate in the expectation that they will obscure the true state of affairs, i.e., the struggle between the two camps of imperialism.

“The Socialists of the oppressed nations, on the other hand, must particularly fight for and maintain complete, absolute unity (also organizational) between the workers of the oppressed nation and the workers of the oppressing nation. Without such unity it will be impossible to maintain an independent proletarian policy and class solidarity with the proletariat of other countries in the face of all the subterfuge, treachery and trickery of the bourgeoisie; for the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations always converts the slogan of national liberation into a means for deceiving the workers; in internal politics it utilizes these slogans as a means for concluding reactionary agreements with the bourgeoisie of the ruling nation (for instance, the Poles in Austria and Russia, who entered into pacts with reaction in order to oppress the Jews and the Ukrainians); in the realm of foreign politics it strives to enter into pacts with one of the rival imperialist powers for the purpose of achieving its own predatory aims (the policies of the small states in the Balkans, etc.).” – Vladimir Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination.

There can be no neutrality regarding the solidarity with Iran, Turkey, China, and the islamist radicals. Those who do not consistently condemn them – support them, support the Eastern bloc of capitalists as opposed to the Western bloc, thus becoming social-chauvinists and facilitating the work of the capitalists worldwide. 

5.2. What Should the Communists Do?

1. No national liberation can be reconciled with supporting or condoning the killing of workers from other countries. We acknowledge all the horrors of the current conflict, and we certainly support the Palestinian people and their rights, but we must also stand with the Israeli workers. Communists must make no concessions to nationalism, chauvinism, and religious fanaticism.

2. For Palestine without Hamas. Communists must support the Palestinian workers. The chauvinism and nationalism must be exposed. At the same time, communists must never gloss over the role of Islamic radicals in the escalation or express support for the “Islamic Resistance Movement”.

The actions of the Islamists run counter to the interests of the Palestinian people. Only a complete and decisive dissociation from Hamas and the capitalist bloc behind it, and the condemnation of the provocative attack of October 7, that caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Gazans and could not militarily advance the cause of their liberation, will contribute to the growth of class consciousness among Palestinian workers.

3. Communists must support the Israeli workers. They must condemn the bombing of Gaza, advocate a decisive separation from Jewish nationalism, and oppose any support for Netanyahu, Israeli capital, and the capitalists of the U.S. and Europe behind them.

4. Communists in Palestine and Israel must develop their own line. Without belonging to any of the bourgeois camps, they must work to form independent communist parties based on Marxist-Leninist principles.

5. The international communist movement must refrain from ultra-revolutionary rhetoric and tailism, and refrain from adhering to one of the imperialist blocs under various pretexts. It is crucial to make a realistic assessment of the communist forces in the world and the Middle East and to develop tactics and strategies based on the current conditions: the absence of communist parties in most countries, including the countries of the Middle East, the unfolding hostilities in the region and the current general weakness of the world communist movement as a whole. 

In the crisis of the communist movement, the tasks of the communists remain the same:

1. Development of a unified theoretical platform. Defense of Marxist-Leninist positions and principles. Defining a clear communist position on the most important issues of our time.

2. Firm dissociation from various kinds of deviations. Struggle against evasions and revisionism in their ranks. Struggle against centrism. Ruthless criticism of opportunists and revisionists in the communist movement at the national and international levels. Strict observance of Marxist-Leninist discipline in work.

3. Building communist organizations based on a unified Marxist-Leninist platform, establishing a solid system of theoretical education, and ensuring the continuous training of cadres.

4. Uniting all consistent communists at the international level. Establishment and expansion of contacts between genuine communist organizations.

We encourage our readers to join the ranks of our organization for this work. If you are already a member of an organization, you can get in touch with us by writing to politsturm.inter@gmail.com.