Pierre Frank in 1948: "The Events in Palestine"

Pierre Frank, Leon Trotsky’s secretary, in 1948 on the case against Zionism

Pierre Frank wrote this report, "The events in Palestine," in June 1948 for La Verite, the publication of the Fourth International in France. It has never before been published in English.

"Six armies: Jewish, Egyptian, Transjordanian, Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese fought each other in Palestine. Why?

The Jews believe they can put an end to their suffering around the world by having their own state. This point of view is endorsed in France, from Soustelle and Torrès of the RPF [Rassemblement du Peuple Français], to the Stalinists, via Rémy Roure of Le Monde, by the social democrats and the RDR.

We view the events in Palestine from the point of view of the progress of the world revolution and of socialism.

It is well known that the Middle East, after being freed from the yoke of the former Turkish sultans, was controlled by English imperialism, directly or indirectly. With the help of Arab feudal chiefs (except Syria and Lebanon, which until very recently were dominated by French imperialism). For English imperialism, this region was extremely important from several points of view: it lies on the routes leading to India, commands the Suez Canal, and contains very rich oil deposits. English domination—there, as elsewhere—was exercised all the more easily because it played on rivalries between peoples. During the First World War, at the same time as Colonel Lawrence dangled before Arab leaders the promise of an Arab empire, Minister Balfour promised the Jews the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

The Second World War accelerated the decline of British imperialism, and it could no longer dominate the Middle East as before, where pressure from the United States was increasingly evident. The United States, which in 1940 had practically no consular representation between Cairo and Baghdad, was now making great strides in an oil-rich country. Anglo-Iranian Oil had sold a large portion of its shares to American companies: Standard Oil and Socony Vacuum.

The smell of oil isn't the Middle East's only attraction for the United States. In its conflict with the USSR, the region occupies a strategically important position: it's the most direct route to Baku's oil reserves.

The rivalry between the two Anglo-Saxon imperialisms is most clearly expressed in the Middle East. Great Britain still occupies the strongest positions. It has Transjordan and Iraq completely at its disposal. The United States has Saudi Arabia at its disposal, whose king receives a royalty for every barrel of oil the Americans extract from its territory; they also have some support among the Egyptians and the Syrians.

It is in this international imbroglio that we must consider, on the one hand, the question of Zionism and, on the other, the current conflict in Palestine.

Zionism had not been a political factor until English imperialism began to use it to introduce an additional element of division into the Middle East, like a sort of abscess, to prevent any unity of the Arab world against imperialism.

Forced to retreat, British imperialism immediately showed the value of its concern for the Jews by abandoning them, because, ultimately, it is impossible to control the Middle East against the Arabs. Zionism turned to the side of American imperialism, and the latter, seeking, for the time being, more numerous points of support in this part of the world, has established itself as the defender of the Jews in Palestine. In this region, American imperialism is guided by considerations similar to those of British imperialism, with the only difference being that it seeks to have a larger share. This is why we must expect in Palestine a compromise solution that will be very unstable and which will be followed in the more or less short term by a whole series of partial conflicts, guerrilla wars between Jews and Arabs and among Arabs themselves.

---

Since it became a political factor, Zionism has been nothing more than an instrument of imperialism. However, it has found defenders in the working class for two main reasons. Some praise "Jewish achievements" in Palestine; others present the creation of a Jewish state as a first step toward solving the Jewish question, made so acute by the decline of capitalism and the anti-Semitism it proliferates.

To accept the first argument is to accept colonialism. For "Jewish achievements" are those of capital of English or American origin. In Palestine, the Jewish economy, fueled from outside, constitutes a completely closed economy. Jewish immigrant workers in Palestine played, in relation to the Arab masses, a role quite similar to that of white workers in the colonies, that is to say, while being exploited themselves, their main function was to aid the domination of English imperialism. Colonialism always dons a humanitarian cloak to justify itself. Should we therefore believe it when it claims to be the enemy of anti-Semitism?

Here, we come to the second argument of supporters of Zionism. In the current state of world relations, the "Zionist solution" will prove to be the most tragic of deceptions. Yesterday, with Hitler, the German capitalists diverted the discontent of the impoverished petty bourgeoisie against the Jews. Today, the English capitalists, with Churchill and Bevin in complete agreement on this point, are abandoning the Jews (whom English imperialism brought to Palestine) to the blows of the Arab armies (maintained, trained, and led by the English). Tomorrow, in the event of a third world war, the Americans, in order to gain the support of the Arab world, especially in the Middle East, will not hesitate to abandon the Jews in the same way that the English abandoned them. Through Zionism, the imperialists exploited the misfortunes and despair of the Jews to better dominate the Arab world: but the necessities of imperialist policy will lead these same defenders of Israel to abandon the Jews in the Palestinian trap, as they actually did, in Hitler's camps, for many long years, without saying a word.

---

Let's say a few words about the USSR's policy. We mentioned the importance of the Middle East in a conflict between the USA and the USSR. Soviet diplomacy, having found no echo among the Arab feudal leaders, also presents itself as the "protector" of minorities. Hence its defence of the Orthodox Christian communities of Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. Hence, also its support of the Jews, which should also allow it to send several thousand Polish, Lithuanian, etc. Jews there. It is not a solution to the Jewish question that interests the Stalinist bureaucracy, but the creation of massive support for a possible world war.

---

What position do we defend in the face of the Jewish problem on the one hand, and in the presence of the war in Palestine on the other?

The strength of the revolution in the Middle East lies essentially in the Arab masses, in this young proletariat that has begun to assert itself in a whole series of strikes, particularly in Egypt, and among the poor peasants. Zionism, the division of Palestine, can only hinder the progress of the revolutionary movement in the Middle East by allowing feudal leaders to divert the discontent of the masses into anti-Semitism. (This is particularly the case with King Farouk.) This is why we are absolutely opposed to any division of Palestine, to any creation of a Jewish state.

To the workers of the world who want to help the Jews escape from the distress into which Hitlerism has plunged them, we say:

"Do not be complicit in the designs of your rulers against the Arab masses in the Middle East. Impose on your own governments the right of immigration for Jews. They must be able to settle and work in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, France, Latin America, etc. The fight against anti-Semitism must be waged at home."

The war in Palestine must also be an opportunity for the Arab masses, for the workers and the peasants, to exploit the difficulties of their masters, to put forward their class demands, to demand social legislation for the workers, agrarian reform for the peasants, a Constituent Assembly to allow the Arab masses to make their wishes known.

In this war, our denunciation of Zionism is also compounded by our denunciation of the Arab League. The rulers and feudal chieftains who constitute it are also in the service of the imperialists and hope for their help in obtaining their share of profits and in better exploiting the Arab working and peasant masses. They, too, seek to divide Palestine among themselves. To the workers of these countries and to all the workers of the Arab countries, from Morocco to Iraq, we say that their enemy is not the Jewish worker, who has been reduced to despair, but their feudal masters who sell themselves and resell themselves to imperialism. They must take advantage of the current situation to rise up against their masters. The solution in the Middle East for the exploited Arabs and for the Jewish workers who are now in Palestine does not lie in one more state among others, none of which is viable and all of which will be used against each other by the great powers, but in the free development of nationalities. This solution can only be achieved through the most intransigent opposition to any acceptance of a Jewish state and through the struggle of the Arab working and peasant masses raised against imperialism and the feudal rulers who serve it."