Two states no solution for Palestine

-Philip Ferguson

 The current brutal invasion and occupation of Gaza have raised, yet again, the question of the nature of the Israeli state.  For us in the Workers Party the horrors rained down on the people of Gaza are the logical result of an exclusivist-Zionist state set up at the expense, and through the dispossession, of the Palestinian people.  Campaigning for an immediate Israeli withdrawal is the chief priority right now, but such a withdrawal does not even begin to address the wider denial of the rights of the Palestinians as a people – the very thing which ensures that actions like the attacks on Gaza will continue. 


In order to survive, the Israeli state has to crush all Palestinian resistance to it.  It has to lower the expectations of the Palestinians and demoralise them into submitting totally to Israeli domination or drive them completely away from the borders of the Zionist state.  The necessary consequences of the very existence of Israel, shown to the world so graphically by the assault on Gaza, also continually undermine attempts to establish any kind of peace apart from the peace of the grave which Israel requires for the cause of Palestinian emancipation and freedom. 


In the past several decades, especially since the Oslo Accords of 1993, the main framework put forward for establishing peace has been the idea of a ‘two-state solution’.  This suggested that the Israeli state remain, with its 1967 (pre-Six-Day War) borders, and a Palestinian state be set up in Gaza and the West Bank (the two main areas of Palestinian population occupied by Israel in that war).  This ‘solution’ required the removal of Israeli settlers and troops from these areas and the establishment of a Palestinian representative and administrative body.   


The two-state project partly reflected the inability of the Israeli state to completely defeat the Palestinians but, more significantly, it represented an attempt by the imperialist powers, especially the United States, to establish stability while maintaining the existence of Israel and continuing to deny self-determination and liberation to the Palestinians.  Acceptance of a two-state solution on the part of the Palestinian liberation forces grouped together in the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) represented a significant political retreat, as we shall see.


This two-state approach was not new.  For instance, in 1937, when the British government ruled over Palestine under the League of Nations mandate system, a government-commissioned report – that of the Peel Commission – suggested dividing the territory into an Arab area, a Jewish area and an area which Britain would continue to rule.  In 1947, the United Nations planned to divide up Palestine along similar lines, their suggestions being rejected by leaders across the Arab world, including in Palestine.


In May 1948, however, the United Nations went ahead with its partition plan.  The state of Israel was created and its Zionist creators were given by the United Nations 56% of the territory of Palestine for a Jewish state, although Jews only comprised a third of the population – in fact, when Zionism was founded in 1897 Jews comprised no more than 10 percent of the population of Palestine.  The Arab population which comprised almost two-thirds of the population of Palestine were only allowed by the UN to keep 44% of the territory.  As the first map below also shows, the whole project of dividing this small land made the proposed Palestinian state unfeasible anyway.  Essentially the United Nations had taken more than half of their land and handed it over to a political movement, Zionism, that was essentially a form of European colonialism. 


Poorly-trained and -equipped Arab forces, including Palestinians, were defeated over the next eight-nine months.  Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from their homes and large chunks of what the UN had designated as the Palestinian state were gobbled up by Israel (see maps below).  After this war, the new Zionist state had possession of 80% of the land of Palestine.  The dispossessed Palestinians fled to other parts of the Middle East and further afield, as well as to the Gaza Strip and the areas west of the Jordan River that were not grabbed by Israel.  In 1950, however, Jordan annexed the West Bank region and Egypt took possession of Gaza.  The pseudo-state of Palestine – ie, the bit of land left for the Palestinians when the United Nations took away most of their territory – was itself now gone.  The Palestinians were left as a people without a country.partition-palestine1

Most of the Palestinians driven out of their homeland by the new Israeli state ended up in what were supposed to be only temporary refugee camps, based mainly in Gaza and the West Bank.  The camps lacked drainage and sanitation and the inhabitants lived on UN rations. 


In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organisation was set up, by it was dominated by Arab regimes and those they appointed to speak on behalf of the Palestinians.  After the ignominious defeat of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in the 1967 war, Israel took over the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, the latter being part of Syria (see map below). 

occupied-areas It became clear that Arab regimes, even professedly radical ones at the time, such as those of Egypt and Syria, were no match for Israel and could not be vehicles for the liberation of the Palestinians.


Palestinian groups took control of the PLO and it became the main representative body of the Palestinians for the next almost forty years.  The PLO brought together a number of different Palestinian freedom organisations.  The largest was El Fatah and so its founder and leader, Yasser Arafat, became the head of the PLO.  The next most significant force in the PLO was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), founded by George Habash who came from a Christian Palestinian background.  The PFLP officially embraced Marxism.


Over the next several decades the PLO and its various component parts fought an armed struggle with Israel.  Their goal, embodied in the Palestinian National Charter of 1968, was to bring an end to the exclusivist-Zionist state of Israel and replace it with a democratic, secular Palestine in which Arab and Jew would live together on the basis of equality.  The PLO and its aim of a democratic, secular Palestine also drew some support from radical-minded Jewish people and some small left-wing groups in Israel.


The PLO faced incredible difficulties.  Not only was the Israeli state backed by western imperialism, most especially the United States which economically subsidised it and made sure it was armed to the teeth, but the PLO had to contend with an array of reactionary Arab regimes who, however much they disliked the existence of Israel, feared the radical effects of the struggle for Palestinian liberation on their own much-oppressed populations.  The more radical Arab regimes gave some backing to the PLO but sought to subordinate the Palestinian organisations to their own political agendas. 


From the mid-late 1970s the PLO, which was based in Beirut, Lebanon, came under attack from the Lebanese right-wing Christian military forces, the Israelis and the Syrians and finally, in 1982, were forced to abandon their bases there and move to Tunis.  This marked an important defeat for the progressive-secular Palestinian liberation movement.  It also made them even more dependent on aid from both manipulative Arab regimes and Western governments which sought to ‘moderate’ the politics and tactics of the PLO.


In the face of these objective difficulties, elements of the PLO, especially in Fatah, began to retreat politically.  In fact, by 1974 Fatah had effectively shifted away from the democratic, secular (one-state) solution and towards a two-state approach – the position favoured by both Arab regimes and ‘liberal’ Western governments – although it did not formally adopt a two-state position until 1988.  Arafat and the others, removed from the harsher conditions of Beirut, also began to enjoy the comforts of Tunis and the opportunities for personal enrichment and high-flying diplomacy that were opened up to them as they shifted away from the perspective of a liberated Palestine and towards accommodation with the existence of Israel. 


In 1988, Arafat addressed a meeting of the UN in Geneva, formally announcing PLO recognition of Israel and declaring it should be able “to exist in peace and security”.  He also announced that the PLO “totally and absolutely renounce all forms of terrorism. . .”  In reality, he was declaring an end to all armed struggle against Israel.  The aim of the dominant leadership of the PLO then became the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.


Such a perspective, however, ran counter to any possibility of Palestinian liberation.  For a start, from the time of the 1967 war, Israelis established settlements in the Occupied Territories and saw these as part of a Greater Israel.  These settlements spread out, especially across the West Bank, in a way which broke up the Palestinian territories.  Even travel between Palestinian towns is hampered by Israeli settlements and road blocks.  It was and remains impossible to form any contiguous, even half-viable Palestinian state and economy.  Moreover, given the levels of poverty among Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, many had little choice but to commute daily into Israel for work, becoming a source of cheap labour for the Israeli economy.  In practice, the Palestinian areas became something life a series of Bantustans, under the economic, military and political thumb of the Israeli state.[1] 


jewish-settlementsHowever, since the dominant ethos of Zionism has been more to push the Palestinians away from Israel’s ever-expanding borders than to use them as a mass pool of cheap labour, the apartheid/Bantustan analogy can be misleading.  As Israeli-born Marxist Moshe Machover has noted, the Palestinian areas are more like the Native American reservations created by the US government, in terms of their political and economic function, than they are like Bantustans.2

In 1987, Palestinians frustrated by the continuing Israel rule and oppression of the Occupied Territories rebelled.  In particular Palestinian youth took on the Israeli military with stones, petrol bombs and other improvised weapons.  The rebellion was called the Intifada.  The next year, the king of Jordan renounced Jordanian claims over the West Bank in favour of the PLO.


Peace talks about establishing a formal Palestinian state got under way in the early 1990s, resulting in the Oslo Accords of 1993.  The immediate background to these accords was the increasing political pressure being placed on the PLO and the increasing corruption of the leadership around Arafat.  The collapse of the Soviet bloc, one of the PLO’s most important backers, and the withdrawal of financial assistance by the Gulf states due to Arafat’s support for Iraq in the first Gulf War, meant that the PLO found it increasingly difficult to survive and manoeuvre; it became increasingly dependent on winning some kind of favour from the US and other Western governments and doing a compromise deal with Israel.


The Oslo Accords envisaged a partial shift to Palestinian self-government in the Occupied Territories.  It was only partial because parts of these areas would stay under full Israeli control (eg the substantial Israeli settlements) and parts under Israeli “security” control.  Issues such as the settlements, the fate of Jerusalem and the question of the return of Palestinian refugees from abroad, of whom there are several million, were left to be decided upon at a future date.  In 1994, a Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was established as an administrative structure in the Bantustan-like Palestinian areas of the West Bank and Gaza and the following year Arafat was elected as its first president.  The PNA received substantial funds from the US and the European Union – about $US1 billion in 2005, for instance – although chunks of this money ended up in the hands of the Arafat cabal and their friends in business.  Indeed, the PLO became increasingly corrupted by the funds which sections of its leaders controlled through the PNA.


The increasing corruption and collaboration of much of the PLO leadership with Israel paved the way for the rise of Islamist movements such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, especially in Gaza, the poorest of the two main Occupied Territories/PNA areas.  Hamas emerged in 1987, during the first Intifada.[1]  It arose from the Gaza wing of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood.  It gained a mass base by being seen as an intransigent opponent of Israel and Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, because it provided social, cultural and economic services to the Palestinian population and because it was untainted by the corruption associated with the PLO.  When the Second Intifada began in September 2000, it swelled the ranks of Hamas and other groups which were seen as more strongly asserting Palestinian rights than the PLO.  In 2000 the Islamic Hezbollah movement drove Israel out of Lebanon, where it had been esconced since invading that country in 1982.  This further raised the prestige of Islamic politico-military forces.


In 2006, Hamas won the PNA elections, displacing the PLO as the major representative party of Palestinians, at least within the areas nominally under PLO control.  The Western powers expressed their displeasure with the democratic vote of the Palestinian people and cut off aid to the PNA.  The economic position of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank has deteriorated even further.  According to the latest World Bank report, the percentage of Gazans living in ‘deep poverty’ rose from 21.6% in 1998 to 35% in 2006, while GDP growth is zero.  GDP per capita in Gaza is under $US600 a year at present and possibly double that in the West Bank compared to with around $30,000 in Israel.  Unemployment ranges from 40-50% in Gaza and over 20% in the West Bank, compared with just over 7% in Israel.


The economic statistics for Gaza and the West Bank point up how unviable a two-state ‘solution’ is.  This solution means a Palestinian pseudo-state, with mass poverty and unemployment and chronic under-development alongside a prosperous Israeli state which would continue to be armed and supported by the United States and other Western powers.  The Palestinian pseudo-state would be thoroughly subordinate to Israel and dependent on aid from Western powers.  It would continue to provide cheap labour whenever Israel needed it, and such workers would be commuting daily between home in the impoverished pseudo-state and work in Israel.  Whenever the resulting Palestinian anger targeted Israel, the governing apparatus of the Palestinian state would be expected to crush it.  In effect, such a state apparatus would police the Palestinian population on behalf of the Israeli state.  To a large extent, this is the role that the PLO/PNA played in the late 1990s and early 2000s and helps explain the loss of support for the PLO.  Whenever the Palestinian Authority proved incapable or unwilling to play such a role, the Israelis would intervene directly, with their regular bombs, their phosphorous bombs, their tanks and other military might to teach the Palestinians their ‘proper’ place.


The current murderous Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza is thus the logical product of the two-state solution imposed by the imperialists and agreed to by the Arafat cabal atop the PLO.  The Palestinians can never hope to be liberated politically, much less economically, by a two-state set-up.  The fight for a single state solution therefore seems to be making a comeback, much to the chagrin of the Israeli establishment.


Interestingly, back in 2003 Israeli deputy prime minister Ehud Olmert – today Olmert is the prime minister – told the country’s leading newspaper, Haaretz, “More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one.  From a struggle against ‘occupation,’ in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote.  That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one.  For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state.”


Speed the day.

[1] Ironically, there is quite a bit of evidence that Hamas received Israeli backing in order to undermine secular radical Palestinian nationalism, which the Israeli state saw at the time as the main threat.  While the PLO made compromise after compromise, none of it was enough for the Israeli state; it continued attempting to destroy Arafat and the PLO.  One of the results of this is that Israel now faces a substantial, militant Islamic movement.

[2]The Bantustans were set up by the South African apartheid government.  They were impoverished areas of nominal black self-government, but in reality controlled by puppets of the apartheid regime.  Workers from these impoverished areas were sucked out of and pushed back into the Bantustans as cheap labour at the will of the (white) South African capitalists. 


  1. The Zionist state may ‘reap what it sows’.

  2. Some good points are raised here as to why a capitalist ‘two state’ solution will not liberate the Palestinians. Obviously the author supports the ‘one state’ solution but he does not say what he thinks the character of this state should be.

    Is he arguing that a single capitalist Palestinian state would be a solution? It seems that your party wants New Zealand to be a workers state, do you not think the Palestinians should also have a workers state? Also what about Israeli workers, are they less important than New Zealanders? Do they not also deserve socialism?

    Is it not better for socialists to support the armed struggle while campaigning for a socialist Palestine and a socialist Israel? A SOCIALIST two state solution could include borders that are agreed on by locals and it would also be able to provide for workers on both sides, therefore eliminating tensions.

    It is capitalism that has failed the people of the Middle east. You can not talk about a solution for the region without talking about socialism. I think support amongst Israeli Jews for the creation of a real Palestinian state would increase if they knew the Palestinians wanted a socialist state that desired peace and class solidarity.

  3. The arab refugee problem was created by the arabs themselves. The British betrayed the jews after the balfour decleration. Finally once israel was created the surrounding arab countries didn’t even want their citizens. They built camps in the state and attracted the worlds media to the problem.

  4. Choomoo – did you actually READ any of the original post? If you did and wish to argue against any of it then simple assertions will not do – some facts and references are essential. Otherwise you are nothing more than a time-wasting troll.

    Ahmad – the problem with orientating to Israeli workers is that most of them support the apartheid logic of Zionism, as evidenced by the main Israeli trade union federation the Histadrut who came out with this appalling statement on the recent atrocities in Gaza:

    “The Histadrut would have preferred that the current situation had not
    developed this way. Israel embarked on operation “Cast Lead” after
    acting with great restraint for many years towards unbearable constant terror
    attacks from Gaza and making every diplomatic attempt to avoid
    confrontation. Israel agreed to a “state of calm”, while Hamas exploited
    the agreement to build up its forces and rearm. Not only did Hamas rearm
    itself, but it terminated the calm by launching up to 80 rockets a day at
    Israeli civilians. By this time, Israel had no choice but to respond to the
    repeated attacks and aggression as an act of justifiable self-defense…”


    And as far as a “socialist two state solution” goes, how can you build socialism while at the same time denying the 4.2 million Palestinian refugees the right of return to their ancestral homes confiscated by Israel?

  5. Well said on both counts Tim.

    Ahmad, I think the author would support a socialist Palestine. But a two state solution is still just as unworkable because of the massive economic disparity between the two areas and because of the issue of refugee right of return. It must be a united state were Palestinian and Jewish workers can strive together for a Socialist state. Proposing a two state solution, even a socialist two state solution, is giving legitimacy to a Racist state, and the forced diaspora of the Palestinians. A divided Palestine means that workers are far more likely to think of racial/national liberation as apposed to class liberation.

  6. Actually on both counts Tim is wrong.

    According to recent surveys, support amongst Israeli Jews for the creation of a real Palestinian state is at about two-thirds. Many more would be in support if it was a socialist state that desired peace.

    As for the comments of the Histadrut, does Tim also use the comments of the New Zealand trade union leaders to measure the consciousness of the New Zealand working class? I would think not. We have a fight on our hands to build fighting workers organisations in Israel and Palestine just as you do in New Zealand.

    Lastly, who ever said that a socialist two state solution would deny Palestinian refugees the right of return? You are just making this stuff up. It is not a contradiction to fight for a socialist Palestine alongside a socialist Israel with the right of return for refugees and rights for all minorities.

  7. Ahmad, support by Israeli Jews for a Palestinian state is meaningless when the same body of people also overwhelmingly support (at least 82%!) the recent atrocities by the IDF in Gaza (see

    Regarding the right of return, Israel was conceived as a confessional Jewish state and has consistently striven to establish a homogenous Jewish population within its borders (to the detriment of the original non-Jewish inhabitants). Given that there are currently some 5 million Jewish people living within Israel as defined by the 1967 borders and 2 million non-Jews, it is clear that allowing the 4.2 million Palestinian refugees living in Gaza, the West Bank and neighbouring Arab countries the right of return would destroy the entire political basis of Israel’s existence. For what is Israel after all if it is not a Jewish state?

  8. interesting the reference to the nytimes there tim,
    i’m trying to imagine how a right of return would work, and or exactly what the wp means by this

  9. On the subject of the right of the return, I highly recommend people check out the following link:

  10. P.S. the NY Times article which I posted the link for is of course (viewed from a political perspective) an exercise in pro-Zionist apologetics. Nevertheless I felt that it was useful in terms of the insight it gives us into the Israeli psyche and the reasons why Israelis so overwhelmingly support the slaughter in Gaza.

    Until Israeli Jews break with Zionism there will be no prospect of winning them to socialism.

  11. Chomoo; ” If you no have the facts, no right to speak” Mao.

    Fact 1 Before 1948 Palestine was a British protectorate, therefore it was the Palestinians that the British were supposed to be protecting and it was the Palestinians who were betrayed.

    Fact 2 The Balfour Declaration was drafted in 1920 by Lord Rothschild, they drew up the document and the map that looks almost exactly the same as the map today.

    Fact 3 Lord Rothschild was a Zionist and the above mentioned documents was part of an agenda to expel the Palestinians from their own land. Why? Because the Zionists believe that their ‘God’ had promised them that land and claim a biblical endorsment as a pretext for a land grab.

    A lot of innocent and naive jews abroard were being conned into partaking of settlements on land that belonged to Palistinians. As Tim has said until a lot of the Israeli jews accept that zionism is a con there will be no peace in Israel.

  12. Tim,

    The reason there is support for the recent atrocities is not because all Israeli Jews are reactionary. It is common for a strong mood of nationalism to be dominant at the beginning of any war. History shows that often this can change quickly, especially when workers see that the war is not being waged in their interests.

    The support for the military intervention on this occasion has a lot to do with the weakness of the workers movement inside Israel and the incorrect tactics of Hamas.

    The Israeli ruling class has used the fact that rockets are falling onto the roofs of workers homes in the south of Israel to bolster their own support. They claim that they are looking out for the security of working people and they call on them to unite around the government. The Israel regime actually sees the class divide in Israel more than many ‘Leftists’ let alone Hamas.

    The task of socialists is to drive a wedge between Israeli workers and Israeli bosses while attempting to draw together workers on both sides of the border and internationally.

    By the way, the NYT article also understates the size of the anti war protests inside Israel.

    On your second point, you are still arguing from the standpoint of a single capitalist Palestinian state. On the basis of capitalism of course Israeli Jews would be reluctant to accept the right of return for refugees. But on the basis of two socialist states (with agreed borders) that could provide for all, this would be a different question.

    I obviously agree that Israeli workers need to break with Zionism but the only viable counterweight to this is the workers movement with an internationalist outlook. This movement needs to be built in both Israel and Palestine. Only in this way will trust be built between the two sides.

    Again this is why you can not discuss the conflict without discussing a socialist solution first and foremost, hence the weakness of the article above.

  13. Philip Ferguson says:

    Ahmad asks, “Is it not better for socialists to support the armed struggle while campaigning for a socialist Palestine and a socialist Israel?”

    Well, we are in NZ, not Israel/Palestine, so our task is to oppose imperialism in the region (as elsewhere) and not to develop ‘a line’ for the Middle East revolution. Only people in the region can campaign for socialism – and we certainly extend our solidarity to those who work towards this end in the region.

    It’s difficult to see, however, how you could have a socialist Palestine *and* a socialist Israel. The very existence of Israel is predicated upon the dispossession of the Palestinians. It can only ever be a reactionary state. You can’t build socialism within Israel, but only by bringing Israel to an end.

    Similarly, it’s difficult to see how you could have socialism in the Palestinian reservations, which make up the current Palestinian pseudo-state. In my article I described Gaza and the West Bank as Bantustans but, after looking at some stuff written by Moshe Machover I tend to agree with them that these are less like Bantustans and more like American Indian reservations. It is inconceivable that socialism could be created in that context.

    A socialist Middle East would, I think, require the destruction of Israel and the artificial borders of the Arab states. The precise shape of a socialist revolution in the region can’t be known in advance and speculation, however interesting it might be, would be indulgence on the part of Western leftists. Our prime responsibility is not to come up with ‘blueprints’ for how the peoples of the Middle East can or should make their revolution/s; rather our prime responsibility is to oppose Western imperialism intervention and the activities of the Israeli state and its continuing denial of Palestinian rights, most particularly the national rights of the Palestinian people. OIn doing so, we are in the tradition of Marx and Engels’ work in Britain around the questiln of Ireland and the tradition of Lenin in terms of highlighting the importance of national liberation struggles.

    The remit for my article was to produce a critique of the two-state solution. While I’d change the article somewhat if I was writing it today – for instance, having read Machover, I think there are limitations to the apatheid/Bantustan analogy I used – I think the article does a reasonably good job of showing what is wrong with the ‘solution’ proposed by Western powers of both the openly reactionary and liberal varieties.


  14. The first problem Philip is that when you promote a single capitalist Palestinian state you are actually developing ‘a line’ for the Middle East revolution. I don’t think having ‘a line’ is the problem, I just don’t agree with your particular line.

    Real socialism is international so to say workers in New Zealand can not campaign for socialism in the Middle East is absurd. Marxists don’t just feel responsibility for the struggles in their own regions but for struggles the world over. That is why it is not only correct but also an obligation for us to contribute to discussions and struggles in all parts of the world.

    This is the traditions of all the great Marxist thinkers, many of whom wrote about countries they had not even been to. While we don’t discount local knowledge or experience, we also know that throughout history sometimes revolutionaries abroad have been more correct than those on the ground. Lenin himself was an example of this.

    On the Middle East you say we need the “destruction of Israel” and that “You can’t build socialism within Israel, but only by bringing Israel to an end.” Do you apply this logic when looking at your own national conflict?

    To paraphrase you, my understanding is that the very existence of New Zealand is predicated upon the dispossession of the Maori people. Does this mean that New Zealand can only ever be a reactionary state and that we will never build socialism within New Zealand?

    While there are obvious differences between New Zealand and the Middle East, to use your approach to national conflicts would mean calling for a single capitalist Maori state in New Zealand which I suggest would not have much support amongst white workers.

  15. Actually the position of WP with respect to the issue of Maori liberation is quite similar in many respects to our “position” (such as it is) on Palestine – i.e. we call for a single, multiethnic secular and socialist state with equal rights for all.

    If we applied Ahmad’s “two peoples – two states” logic, we would be calling for the creation of a separate Maori “state” in areas like the East Cape and Northland – a manifestly absurd and unworkable proposal!

    Furthermore, NZ unlike Israel does not have racial/ethnic segregation so if you wanted to implement partition you would find most people did not fit into the categories of being either “pure” Pakeha or “pure” Maori (not to mention the Samoans, Tongans etc!).

  16. Remember that under Gen.Tito Yugoslavia was united for some years and even enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy fron Moscow, religion was discouraged and people were focused on building a socialist future.

    Eventually people forgot about their ethnic differences and worked together. Once imperialism/nationalism got the upper hand division and eventualy civil war ensued.

    Surely if Tito could unite the former Yugoslavia then Palastine and Isreal could be united under a socialist system but Zionism needs to be ruthlessly smashed and religion discouraged in both camps.


%d bloggers like this: