我译自CWI的以色列政权的野蛮攻击杀死和伤害成千上万人，留给加沙的是一片废墟（初稿）

以色列政权的野蛮攻击杀死和伤害成千上万人，留给加沙的是一片废墟

呼吁停火，但冲突的根源仍然在——至关重要的是社会主义的解决方案！

工人国际委员会国际秘书处，罗伯特•贝歇特

中东地区的群众再次经历了更多的痛苦，伤害和死亡。这种对加沙地带的攻击一直是一边倒的暴行。 据报道第一天有225人丧生，这是以色列历史上血腥的一日。

在国际上，以色列政府的宣传是为了阻止对以色列南部地区的导弹袭击，这样的破坏性打击是必要的。可以说这种大规模的袭击是完全不对称的而且无助于实现和平。有着越来越多的表明这场战争影响到平民的证据，其中包括袭击联合国建造的难民营，这些越来越令人义愤填膺。社会主义者反对哈马斯的一些政策和方法，但是一刻也没有因此而削弱我们要求立即停止对加沙袭击所从事的活动。
以色列政府发起的这种对巴勒斯坦人进行集体惩罚的目的之一是破坏对在2006年1月巴勒斯坦议会选举中获胜的哈马斯的支持并打击巴勒斯坦的反压迫和反占领的意志。以色列和埃及封锁加沙地带的目的是要使人们服软而顺从地接受帝国主义强加到他们身上的任何协议。战争的另一个目的是迫使巴勒斯坦人接受以色列、反动的阿拉伯政权和帝国主义可以接受的领导人。

以色列政府的最直接的战争目标，即于2月10日的重新选举，更可能无法实现。力量进一步右转，尤其是内塔尼亚胡领导的利库德集团和利伯曼的Yisrael Beitenu（以色列我们的家园） ，在投票中已有所获。虽然这一屠杀展示了以色列军队2006年在黎巴嫩发动的针对黎巴嫩真主党的战争失败后的军事力量，但对以色列统治阶级而言，它没有提供解决办法。

巴勒斯坦工人阶级和穷人承受的这场战争的代价是巨大的。但是，不管以色列政权短期内得到了什么，从长远来看，它不会给以色列工人阶级带来什么积极的东西。这种屠杀不会带给以色列劳动人民和平或安全。相反，它会导致又一轮冲突，其中巴勒斯坦的工人阶级和穷人，包括以色列犹太工人，将受害最深。

这场战争再次向巴勒斯坦人提出尖锐的问题：他们如何才能结束压迫和实现解放。显然，阿拉伯政权，甚至那些口头上谴责这一攻击的阿拉伯政权，并不能使巴勒斯坦群众免受压迫。相反，他们更害怕激进的巴勒斯坦人民以及他们自己的人民。这一经验再次表明，巴勒斯坦工人和穷人只能通过自己的行动才能真正地保护自己并实现真正的自由和安全。
挑拨离间法塔赫和哈马斯

试图通过踏平加沙大部分地区来使人们疏离哈马斯而转向效忠更为顺服的民族权力机构主席阿巴斯和巴勒斯坦解放组织（巴解组织）的领导是完全错误的。哈马斯由于关键成员的死亡在军事上可能已经减弱，但在政治上，哈马斯可能得到加强。哈马斯最初赢得支持是因为人们认为它比法塔赫领导层更少腐败和更少顺从帝国主义者。这场战争的结果将是进一步削弱对法塔赫的支持和加强更为激进的势力。

这就是为什么美国和其他势力加大努力来支持法塔赫的原因。该计划是使由法塔赫当政的西岸的巴勒斯坦民族权力机构（自治政府）来控制重建资金的分配，特别是沙特阿拉伯承诺的10亿美元，并扮演有限的角色以管理加沙与埃及的边界。华尔街日报报道'欧洲联盟高级官员'称： “欧盟将不会帮助重建因以色列的进攻而被毁的建筑物和基础设施，直到加沙由欧盟可接受的统治者管辖” 。同一篇文章报道，在'耶路撒冷的西方外交官' 说明他们的计划就是： “巴勒斯坦民族权力机构（自治政府）回来拯救加沙人民。这就是我们直言不讳的观点“ 。 （ 1月20日）这就是他们所谓的为加沙及其受苦受难的人民争取自决和给予的所谓的人道主义帮助！

这场战争是以色列政府以应对来自加沙地带的导弹袭击为借口而蓄意挑起的。它的唯一的理由是哈马斯除非在解除封锁情况下将拒绝延长6个月的停火'（阿拉伯人和希伯来人的字面上的'平静'），并恢复从加沙地带向以色列南部地区发射相对较少而且作用不大的导弹。当然，对当地居民来说，这是恐怖活动，但与以色列军队所造成的伤亡相比，它们造成相对较小的破坏和生命丧失。尽管如此，它们给了奥尔默特政府理由来发动战争并使它能够调动绝大多数以色列犹太人支持打击。美国和其他国家政府把这些导弹看作是主要问题，而把对巴勒斯坦人的屠杀及其苦难放在次要的位置。
社会主义者和支持其他被压迫人民一样支持巴勒斯坦人民的在必要的情况下通过武装行动来保卫自己的权利。然而，为了行之有效，这种自卫的行动必须建立在群众的支持上并处在通过基层委员会组织起来的更广泛的人们的民主要求下。否则，秘密民兵组织的发展有演变成刑事勒索并使得以色列安全人员更容易渗透进去的危险。

此外，火箭袭击的策略以及此前针对以色列公民的自杀式炸弹袭击——工人国际委员会反对这样的方法和目标——不能捍卫巴勒斯坦人的利益，并导致了目前绝大多数以色列犹太人支持国家的打击的后果。认为这种袭击将向犹太人显示以色列军队不能保护他们从而能破坏以色列国家的观点是错误的。其主要作用是加强右翼民族主义分子的力量和加强对这场战争的支持。这就是为什么和它的国际支持者乔治•布什一样，以色列政府的宣传机器，不断重复提到“导弹袭击”，同时限制所有外国记者进入加沙地带以试图限制报道以色列的导弹、炮弹所造成的大屠杀。
虽然这一打击的时间选择正值以色列大选前期以及布什政府的结束，军事行动的强度和范围表明它有着更大的战争目的。他们以此证明以色列的军事力量，破坏加沙地带的基础设施以削弱哈马斯的统治，如果可能的话，通过除去选举产生的哈马斯政府实现政权改变而代之以更为顺服的对人友好的巴勒斯坦民族权力机构主席马哈茂德•阿巴斯。
如果不是更长的时间的话，这场战争已经准备了6个月。其中一部分就是组织宣传机器以使人们认为这种打击纯粹是防止哈马斯从加沙发射导弹。但是，尽管导弹袭击，国际上人们普遍知道这场战争是不对称的。在过去三个星期里， 13名以色列人——10名士兵和3名平民——被炸死。这一模式屡见不鲜。在2005年7月，加沙地带发射的导弹导致11名以色列人死亡，而以色列的军事行动造成在加沙地带的1290个巴勒斯坦人，包括222个儿童死亡。 2007年，尽管没有来自那里的导弹发射，83名巴勒斯坦人死于以色列在约旦河西岸的行动。正如2006年在黎巴嫩，以色列空军以'和平'的名义袭击消灭了整个家庭。
整个三个星期的攻击，以色列和其他国家政府担心打击持续的时间越长，阿拉伯国家发生重大剧变并升级为更大的战争的可能性就更高。面对中东不断上涨的愤怒和世界各地日益增加的厌恶，主要的大国被迫出来采取行动，但尽管联合国出台了有关决议而且尼古拉•萨尔科齐在该地区往来穿梭，事情一如往常。现在有可能建议在加沙和埃及边界，也许在加沙地带及其与以色列的边界驻入外国军队来管辖这个边境。但是，这不会给予巴勒斯坦人行动的自由，更遑论自决权了。在黎巴嫩的国际部队并没有阻止2006年的入侵。最后，这些部队会面临越来越多的反对，因为人们认为它们是捍卫帝国主义列强利益的。
给以色列的袭击正当性辩护的谎言和歪曲说明是无耻的。侵略者把它的行动说成是防御性的做法是正常的。因此，以色列政府根本无视这一事实，它仍然占领着，或在加沙地带的情况下，包围在1967年战争中霸占的领土。以色列外交部长齐皮•利夫尼在世界面前谴责恐怖主义，同时却无视以色列在被占领土地内外所实施的国家恐怖主义。利夫尼的虚伪尤为突出的是她的父母是右翼犹太团体伊尔根的关键成员，该团体在以色列/巴勒斯坦实施了简直是最血腥的恐怖行为， 它1946年在耶路撒冷炸毁大卫王酒店。尽管越来越多的证据表明他们使用了作为一种禁止在平民区使用的战争武器的白磷弹，以色列军队只是回避他们是否使用了白磷弹。
以色列精英不断操纵大屠杀的记忆，试图压制批评，更重要的是利用以色列犹太人的恐惧心理。但是，在以色列的犹太人的悲剧是他们处在如此情势下，只要资本主义和剥削依然存在，它们将面临反复的战争以及担心如果他们被打败将被'推入海'，直到他们看到一种替代办法，许多以色列的犹太人将具有一种被围困的心态并为此可能会导致支持他们政府的侵略。
为投票支持'错误路线'而遭受惩罚

当前军事行动的历史可以追溯到2006年1月，那时哈马斯在选举中以获得44 ％的选票和巴勒斯坦议会132个席位中74个而胜选后，以色列炮击加沙地带。本次投票震惊了希望其2005年从加沙地带撤军将使顺从的法塔赫领导层掌管该地区的以色列政府。

担心哈马斯呼吁抵抗会破坏它的计划，以色列政府试图在加沙施加影响以改变该政权。以色列政府试图通过使加沙居民转而反对哈马斯来削弱哈马斯，这些没有成功。后来在美国杂志名利场上记载的一项美国支持的发动政变反对哈马斯的企图在2007年6月哈马斯把法塔赫从加沙地带逐出而被挫败。然而，在约旦河西岸得到以色列政权帮助的占主导地位的法塔赫日益设法镇压哈马斯的支持者。今天，40多个哈马斯议员遭到监禁，而其他人遭到暗杀。
帝国主义者虚伪地谴责哈马斯2007年6月的行动并接着加强封锁加沙地带。尽管中东地区的主要顾问向当时的美国副总统切尼供认说， “所发生之事基本上不是哈马斯发动的政变而是法塔赫企图发动政变以便在哈马斯可能发动之前先发制人” 。帝国主义列强和腐败的阿拉伯政权完全支持这些针对哈马斯的举动，他们恐怕哈马斯的成功将推进中东地区的反抗

只有当“民主”适合他们的需要时，帝国主义列强才谈'民主' ，如果产生了他们不喜欢的结果，那么它们就不谈“民主”了。没有一个大国曾就目前的企图禁止巴勒斯坦各党派参与2月份的以色列大选发表评论。正如巴勒斯坦人，在帝国主义者看来，他们投票支持'错误的路线' ，帝国主义者没有提及哈马斯在2006年选举中的获胜，而只是一再谴责它为恐怖组织。因此，埃及关闭了进入加沙地带的拉法过境点，同时以色列政府扣留属于巴勒斯坦当局的税收收入并减少运送人道主义物资的卡车。很快有一连串的以色列和哈马斯之间的攻击和反击。
在解释和反对以色列和美国和阿拉伯打击上，社会主义者并不给哈马斯以政治支持。尽管哈马斯有反帝国主义和反腐败的言论，但哈马斯是一个亲资本主义的运动。它试图把自己独特的宗教观点强加给社会并且会无情镇压巴勒斯坦人中间的对手。哈马斯的政策和策略最终将阻碍巴勒斯坦民族解放斗争。其目前得到的支持是因为许多巴勒斯坦人认为哈马斯领导人比起它的对手法塔赫更少腐败以及他们语言上更为激进地反对以色列的侵略。以色列政府对哈马斯的妖魔化是虚伪的，最初，以色列秘密工作支持哈马斯的基金会，以破坏作为其当时的强大的竞争对手的世俗的巴解组织。但是，正如发生在美国中央情报局和沙特资助的阿富汗的'伊斯兰抵抗运动'一样，其用意是把他们作为一个工具，但是这个工具变得过于强大并且威胁到了他们的前资助国。但是，反对哈马斯的政策并帮助建立能为了工人阶级，被压迫者和穷人的利益而结束冲突的工人的组织与抵抗以色列，美国和其他帝国主义政府之间并不矛盾。
精心布置的陷阱

去年，由哈马斯和其他巴勒斯坦团体从加沙地带发射的导弹只是违反为期6个月的'平静'中的一个——以色列军队利用这个“平静”期来为他们的行动认真地做好准备。'平静期'之前，以色列政府借助埃及的胡斯尼•穆巴拉克政权不断增强对加沙地带的封锁。在2005年年底，禁止来自加沙的大部分工人进入以色列工作。然后加沙的商业贸易活动遭到了大大的限制，最终，从2006年年中开始，人道主义援助也遭到挤压。其结果是，去年加沙只收到2005年收到的进口物资的25 ％。这就是为什么加沙的一个主要要求是解除封锁。在加沙的边界挖了数以百计的隧道，这些隧道主要并不是用于以色列和西方国家政府声称的武器走私活动，而是努力克服封锁的影响。

到去年年底，这种封锁变得越来越紧。据华尔街日报报导说， “在十一月五日和开始的最近的冲突之间，平均每天只允许16辆卡车进入加沙地带，而十月份是每天123辆和2007年5月时是每天475辆” （ 1月8日） 。11月5日的日子是重要的，因为它是以色列军队打击后的一天，它开始了实施最新攻击的倒计时。实际上，以色列政府把加沙置于饥饿的口粮配给状态中：联合国说，大约需要40辆卡车以满足加沙每日的最低限度的需要。这就是为什么甚至联合国也说到了以色列的对加沙的集体惩罚。
这种经济封锁和军事打击驱使哈马斯除非在开放边境的情况下将拒绝延长六个月的“平静”，同时也驱使哈马斯重新向以色列南部地区发射导弹，哈马斯领导层切实地掉进了这个陷阱，使得以色列政府政治上更容易发动这个选举前的战争。
以色列11月4号的袭击导致哈马斯六个成员的死亡后，哈马斯拒绝延长六个月'平静'启动了这个陷阱。以色列军方声称有情报显示挖隧道的目的是绑架以色列士兵。
情报和恐怖主义信息中心（ ITIC ）记录了接下来发生的事情，该中心的资料由以色列政府发布。以前的记录表明在7月至10月的4个月里只有11枚火箭弹和15发迫击炮炮弹从加沙发射过来， ITIC报告说， “在6个月的平静期，该恐怖组织发射了223枚火箭弹和139发迫击炮炮弹” ，其中大部分是“在11月4日和12月19日之间的6个星期里”发射的。

显然， 11月4日的袭击改变了局势，这正是它打算这样做的。看来很清楚，以色列政府正在努力筹划10月底确定的2月10日的选举前的行动的时间表。
有许多报道说，哈马斯愿意维持停火，同时要求解除封锁。12月中旬它派遣了一个代表团前往开罗讨论这个问题。大约在同一时间，美国前总统卡特会见了设在叙利亚大马士革的哈马斯政治局的主席马沙尔。马沙尔表示，“如果有迹象表明以色列将解除对加沙的封锁”，哈马斯愿意回到停火状态。几天后，以色列安全机构辛贝特的总负责人尤瓦迪斯12月21日举行的以色列内阁会议中说： “没有错，哈马斯有意维持休战” 。尽管哈马斯领导人说如果通道被打开他们将继续延长停火，但以色列和埃及政府拒绝这样做。
看来，停火协议12月19日结束后哈马斯发射火箭弹不一定是一个长期的攻势的开始。ITIC说，袭击事件12月24日达到高峰。换句话说，以色列空军12月27日发动“铸铅行动”(Operation Cast Lead)前，导弹袭击已经减少。埃及报纸金字塔报（ 1月20日）引述米什尔的话说，哈马斯只计划为期3天的军事反应。相反，加沙遭到了22天的屠杀。

由于这种错误判断，以及哈马斯并不是基于动员群众而落于挑衅。它可以动员加沙地带的人们以诉求在停火计划中同意重新开放加沙边界。不能说要求打开与埃及的边界的大规模动员是恐怖主义。这样的行动，再加上呼吁埃及人的支持，将使穆巴拉克政权处于难以忍受的境地下，要么开放边界，要么将面临反抗。
这不是梦想。不到一年前，拉法附近的边境炸开一个洞后，群众行动保证了11天自由进出，直到哈马斯同意将其重新关闭。去年12月，哈马斯领导人希望发射几百枚导弹将改变这种状况。相反这给了以色列政府借口以发动它希望的选举前的战争。去年1月/ 2月使边境保持开放的群众行动是一个例子，和两次巴勒斯坦人起义一样表明这种形式的斗争是巴勒斯坦民族解放的关键。随着时间的推移，人们将开始质疑哈马斯的政策和策略，正如以前法塔赫的政策和策略受到质疑一样。

对加沙的巴勒斯坦人的集体惩罚——封锁和军事行动——只会加深对以色列的敌意。它不会损害到哈马斯或加强法塔赫的地位。它使得巴勒斯坦人团结起来反对以色列。然而，以色列军方指望厌战情绪可以创造一个更为顺从的情绪。随着哈马斯领导人急于显示以色列人应对任何新的战斗的负责，在加沙似乎结合着绝望和渴望报仇的情绪。
有达成交易的任何机会吗？

有可能受欢迎的遭监禁的法塔赫领导人巴尔古提（Marwan Barghouti）在未来的发展中会发挥作用。在第二次起义期间，巴尔古提的受欢迎程度得到了提高，在本世纪初，他作为一个法塔赫武装分支坦兹姆的领导人被以色列人监禁起来，他从法塔赫中分裂出来并组成一个新党al-Mustaqbal（未来） 。在2006年1月选举中，他与法塔赫联合起来参加选举。后来，巴尔古提帮助起草了由来自许多团体，其中包括哈马斯的知名的遭监禁的巴勒斯坦领导人的联合协议。作为战犯全国安抚文件的这个声明为巴勒斯坦民族团结政府以及同以色列打交道提供了基础。巴尔古提可能尚未被释放，因为帝国主义者企图以某种交易的形式干涉较受欢迎的领导人。

但是，即使一个临时交易也取决于以色列的局势。尽管政府试图呈现出加沙战争取得了胜利的形象，战争仍然不可能挽救前进党和工党的联盟，而且利库德集团领导的政府可以尝试摆出一个更为好斗的姿态。尽管一些帝国主义列强希望解决问题而同意形成两个国家，以色列精英中关键部分将不会允许任何形成一个可行的巴勒斯坦国的走向。他们担心的是这样一个国家，即使是试图形成一个这样的国家，将增添该地区新的不稳定因素。
然而，在以色列境内对战争的质问将增加。虽然这种质疑在名声扫地的2006年黎巴嫩战争中很快出现，现在可能需要多一点的时间，因为加沙战争正在呈现出成功的形象。但是，不可避免地，大家会问：长远的未来是什么？尽管以色列的打击得到了压倒性的支持，主要是因为导弹和上世纪90年代哈马斯的自杀式袭击的策略，只有少数人反对，其中包括一些军人。在特拉维夫和雅法有相当大的巴勒斯坦人和犹太人的联合示威以反对战争。即使在战争的支持者中也没有支持长期重新占领加沙地带的。

随着时间的推移，以色列的犹太人会问：我们到底得到了什么？在以色列社会的两极分化将继续下去。极端民族主义者将要求采取进一步的对巴勒斯坦人的行动。随着新闻报道了所发生的事情，其他国家也将越来越对大规模杀害平民尤其是儿童的做法感到憎恶。如果试图表明以色列国没有取得胜利而恢复导弹攻击或新的自杀性袭击，这样的发展可能中断。
围困的心态和大屠杀的遗痕是个有力的问题，以色列精英经常利用这些问题。尽管玩世不恭的利用，如果为了劳动人民和穷人的利益要打破这种僵局，这些是必须考虑到的真正的因素。除非提供给以色列的犹太人一个可行的替代办法，如果他们认为他们的生存受到威胁，绝大多数人将用尽一切手段反击。
变弱的以色列

以色列犹太人不是一个单一集团。这里有着越来越明显的阶级分化，特别是在新自由主义取消了这个福利国家的许多方面的福利后。自以色列成立以来就有种族隔离。土生土长的以色列精英歧视到1995年占进入以色列的移民45 ％以上的来自阿拉伯国家的犹太人。在过去十年中出现了工人和学生的重要斗争，包括大罢工和示威，随着世界经济灾难的展开，这种斗争再三地爆发。如果利库德集团再次奉行新自由主义政策，它会迅速导致阶级斗争的发展。这些可能带来建立一个真正的工人运动的可能性以作为在以色列的战斗力量，同时也作为以色列和巴勒斯坦工人共同斗争的一步。

国际上，对以色列攻击加沙的野蛮行径越来越多的深恶痛绝削弱了以色列的力量，特别是在2006年黎巴嫩战争之后。视以色列政府的政策为不稳定因素并希望尝试'解决'的部分世界帝国主义可能利用这一点。
新的奥巴马政府的倡议可能会努力走上这条道路，并要求以色列撤出部分1967年战争后占领的领土，他也许会与哈马斯接触，寻求让他们参与某种形式的巴勒斯坦民族团结政府。在这场战争中，奥尔默特主张'土地换和平'的交易，这是奥巴马政府现在所推动的。然而，虽然这些举动调子很高而且会提升希望，在这一天结束时，它们都将被证明是有限的。沿着这些路线，没有什么交易可以挑战资本主义的统治，包括以色列在内的地区性霸权。毫无疑问，巴勒斯坦工人和穷人会再次发现自己被出卖了。

这场战争在阿拉伯国家的舆论上产生了巨大的影响。阿拉伯群众愤怒了，但没有看到具体该怎么做。即使现在只有有限的街头抗议活动，在未来，将感觉到这场战争的影响。
中东的政权显然视哈马斯为一种威胁。埃及和沙特阿拉伯的亲美的政权视哈马斯和逊尼派运动以及伊朗之间的连接为一种公开的道路使什叶派伊朗领导层获得对逊尼派穆斯林国家的影响力。非常有效地反对法塔赫的哈马斯的反腐败和反帝国主义的宣传还可以激励人们反对与帝国主义勾结的腐败的不民主的政权。一位美国布鲁金斯研究所的分析师说： “哈马斯从来没有这么多的合法性” 。这在迈沙勒出席1月15日在卡塔尔首都多哈举行的阿拉伯国家和伊朗的首脑会议上反映出来了。本次会议上，再次显示出阿拉伯国家之间的分裂，埃及和沙特阿拉伯政权没有出席。

这场战争准备着一个更动荡的中东，特别是对那些有效地支持了这一袭击和2006年攻击黎巴嫩的政权。奥巴马可能会使大量的阿拉伯政权卷入进来，试图在不同的问题上达成一致意见，但协议并不等于解决办法。
中东产生冲突的根源在于资本主义无法满足人们的社会和经济需要和它无力解决民族问题上的冲突以及帝国主义国家不断努力在经济上和战略上控制这个重要的地区。这些都加深了整个区域的民族冲突，因为如果不推翻精英统治和资本主义，它们就不能得到解决。直到这样做以前，跨越整个中东地区的周期性的战争和压迫和剥削是不会结束的。

和平的基础
对一些人来说，这一最新战争可能是60年里已席卷该地区的无穷无尽的一系列冲突的一个而已。面对看似棘手的犹太人和巴勒斯坦人之间的冲突，有些人可能会得出这样的结论：没有出路以及中东地区的人们注定要遭受一个又一个灾难。

这不是社会主义者的观点。中东的人民大众希望生活在和平与安全的环境下。工人国际委员会（CWI）认为，真正的和平是可以实现的。然而，唯一可能的是，如果劳动人民——巴勒斯坦人和以色列的犹太人——在承认它们的共同利益的基础上谈判达成一项协议而建设社会主义作为一种替代方式来实现这些目标。
这只能通过巴勒斯坦领土上和以色列以及该地区的工人阶级和穷人的独立的行动和组织的发展达到。这种运动将不得不反对资本主义和当地腐败的精英，并捍卫全体劳动人民的民族权益，这样才能取得成功。他们应该捍卫这样的理念，即所有工作的人应受益于中东地区的财富。通过这种方式，可以为建立双方之间的信任与合作开辟道路，以实现真正的和平。如果没有这样的社会主义运动，统治精英将利用群众对该地区将面临一个持续循环的流血冲突的恐惧维持其统治。

为了反对地方统治者和帝国主义的利益，这类组织可以争取社会主义的解决办法——一个真正独立的社会主义的巴勒斯坦国，这能够满足巴勒斯坦人民的愿望，并且可以与社会主义以色列和平共存。只有在社会主义的框架下开放根据当地人民的愿望重新划定的边界，让耶路撒冷成为共同的首都，并保障所有少数民族的民主权利，这样巴勒斯坦人的困境才可以得到解决。只有巴勒斯坦人和以色列人的民族的权利得到解决，权利的问题才转向那些不希望被看作是一种威胁的问题。社会主义巴勒斯坦和社会主义以色列可能是该地区自由和自愿的社会主义邦联的一部分。
跟着多年遭受的压迫和多年的斗争以及不能确保根本的改变， 加上过去几周加沙遭受的可怕的痛苦，这些肯定会在巴勒斯坦人之间就下一步该怎么做激起讨论和辩论。腐败的法塔赫领导人和哈马斯的局限性将导致重新寻找一条前进的道路，其中群众斗争和社会主义替代的思想将会得到响应。

在以色列，重要的是这场战争一开始就遭到了犹太人和巴勒斯坦人的联合的抗议。然而，在以色列的这个抗议，工人国际委员会（CWI）在其中发挥了作用，只有极少数人并且遭到了特别针对进行抗议的以色列的阿拉伯人的镇压。然而，这一以色列的抗议标明人们将承认可以越来越清楚地看到这个预先计划的选举前的战争和今后的任何战争并不能保证以色列的犹太人的安全。

加沙的巴勒斯坦人经历了这些残暴的事件和遭受巨大的苦难，以色列领导人的玩世不恭，阿拉伯国家领导人的腐败，再加上世界经济危机必然的影响，会为开始建设可以反抗压迫、贫穷和资本主义的社会主义组织创造机会。

Israeli regime’s brutal assault kills and injures thousands, leaves Gaza in ruins
Ceasefire called but root causes of conflict remain – socialist solution vital!
Robert Bechert, International Secretariat, CWI
Once again the masses in the Middle East have endured more suffering, injury and death. This attack on Gaza has been one of overwhelmingly brutality. On the first day, 225 people were reported killed, one of the bloodiest days in Israel’s history.
Internationally, Israeli government propaganda that the destruction was necessary to stop missile attacks on southern Israel was not accepted. The scale of the attack was seen as being out of all proportion and would do nothing to bring peace. The growing evidence of the war’s impact on civilians, including the strikes on those sheltering in UN buildings, increased the outrage. Socialists’ opposition to some of Hamas’ policies and methods did not for a minute dent our campaigning for an immediate end to this attack on Gaza.

One aim of the Israeli government in inflicting this collective punishment on the Palestinians was to undermine support for Hamas, which won the January 2006 Palestinian assembly elections, and crush the Palestinian will to resist oppression and occupation. The Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza was designed to soften up the population so that they would tamely accept any agreement that imperialism foisted onto them. Another aim war was to force Palestinians into accepting leaders who were acceptable to the Israeli state, reactionary Arab regimes, and imperialism.


It more than likely that the Israeli government’s most immediate war aim, re-election on 10 February, will not be achieved. The forces further to the right, particularly Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home), have gained in the polls. While this slaughter illustrates the Israeli army’s military power, following its defeat in the 2006 war on Hezbollah in Lebanon, it has not provided a solution for the Israeli ruling class.
This war’s cost to the Palestinian working class and poor is enormous. But, whatever the short-term gains for the Israeli regime, in the longer term, it will bring nothing positive to the Israeli working class. This slaughter will not bring peace or security to the working people of Israel. On the contrary, it will lead to another cycle of conflict in which the working class and poor, Palestinian but also Israeli Jewish workers, will suffer most.

This war again poses sharply to Palestinians the questions of how they can end oppression and achieve liberation. Clearly, the Arab regimes, even those which verbally denounced this assault, are incapable of preventing the oppression of the Palestinian masses. On the contrary, they are more fearful of a radicalisation of the Palestinians and their own populations. This experience has shown again that it will only be through their own actions that the Palestinian workers and poor can really defend themselves and realise genuine freedom and security.

Playing Fatah against Hamas

The idea that levelling large parts of Gaza would lead its population to switch their allegiance from Hamas to the more compliant Mahmoud Abbas and Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) leadership is utterly false. Hamas may have been militarily weakened, with key personnel killed, but politically, Hamas is likely to emerge strengthened. Hamas originally built its support because it was seen as less corrupt and less amenable to imperialism than the Fatah leadership. This war is resulting in a further weakening of Fatah’s support and the strengthening of more radical forces.


This is why the US and other powers are increasing their efforts to bolster Fatah. The plan is to give the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA), which Fatah runs, control of the distribution of reconstruction funds, especially the promised $1 billion from Saudi Arabia, and a limited role in administering Gaza’s border with Egypt. The Wall Street Journal reported a ‘top European Union official’ saying the EU “wouldn’t help to rebuild buildings and infrastructure destroyed in Israel’s offensive until Gaza is governed by rulers acceptable to the EU”. The same article reported a ‘Western diplomat in Jerusalem’ explaining their plan: “The PA comes back to save the people of Gaza. That’s the narrative”. (20 January) So much for self-determination and humanitarian help for Gaza and its suffering people!

This war was deliberately provoked by the Israeli government under the cover of dealing with missile attacks from Gaza. Its only justification was Hamas’ refusal to extend the six-month ‘ceasefire’ (literally, ‘calm’ in Arabic and Hebrew) unless the blockade was lifted, and the resumption of firing of relatively small, and not very effective, missiles from Gaza into southern Israel. Naturally, this terrorizes the local population, but they have caused relatively minor damage and loss of life, unlike the casualties inflicted by the Israeli military. Nevertheless, they gave Ehud Olmert’s government a cause for war and enabled it to mobilise the vast majority of Israeli Jews behind the assault. The US and other governments made these missiles the major issue, pushing to second place the slaughter and suffering of the Palestinians.


Socialists support the right of Palestinians, like any oppressed people, to defend themselves through armed action if necessary. However, to be effective, such defensive action has to be based on mass support, and under the democratic direction of the wider population, organised through grassroots committees. Otherwise, there is the danger that secretive militia organisations develop that can degenerate into criminal extortion and be infiltrated more easily by the Israeli security services.

Moreover, the policy of rocket attacks and, previously, suicide bombings against Israeli citizens – methods and targets the CWI opposes – cannot defend the Palestinians and has led to the current overwhelming Israeli-Jewish support for the state’s onslaught. The argument that such attacks will show Jews that the Israeli military cannot defend them and, thereby, undermine the Israeli state is wrong. Their main effect has been to strengthen the right-wing nationalists and support for this war. This is why the Israeli government’s propaganda machine, and its international supporters like George Bush, keep repeating the mantra of ‘missile attacks’, while keeping all foreign journalists out of Gaza to try to limit reports of the carnage wrought by Israeli missiles and shells.

While the timing of this onslaught flowed from the early general election in Israel and the end of the Bush administration, the intensity and scope of the military action shows that it had far wider war aims. They were to demonstrate again the power of Israel’s military, wreck Gaza’s infrastructure to cripple Hamas rule and, if possible, secure regime change by removing the elected Hamas government and replacing it with more compliant elements around the outgoing Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.

This war had been prepared for six months, if not longer. Part of this was the organisation of a propaganda machine that would try to present this attack as purely defensive against the missiles fired from Gaza. But, notwithstanding the missile attacks, there was general understanding internationally that the battle was not between equals. In these past three weeks, 13 Israelis – ten soldiers and three civilians – were killed. This pattern has been seen before. During 2005-7, eleven Israelis were killed by missiles fired from Gaza while Israeli military action killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. In 2007, 83 Palestinians were killed by Israeli action in the West Bank despite no missiles being fired from there. As in Lebanon in 2006, the Israeli air assaults have wiped out whole families in the name of ‘peace’.

Throughout the three-week assault the Israeli and other governments feared that the longer the fighting continued, the higher was the possibility of major upheavals in Arab countries and the escalation into a wider war. Faced with rising anger in the Middle East, and growing disgust around the world, the major powers were compelled to appear to act but, despite UN resolutions and Nicolas Sarkozy flying around the region, nothing happened. Possibly now there will be the suggestion to put in foreign troops to police the borders between Gaza and Egypt, perhaps inside the Gaza Strip itself and on its border with Israel. But this will not give freedom of movement, let alone self-determination, to the Palestinians. The international forces in Lebanon did not prevent the 2006 invasion. Eventually, such forces can face increasing opposition as they are seen to be defending the interests of the imperialist powers.

The lies and distortions justifying the Israeli attack were shameless. As is normal, the aggressor presents its actions as simply defensive. Thus, the Israeli government simply ignores the fact that it still occupies or, in the case of Gaza, lays siege to the territories it seized in the 1967 war. Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, stood before the world denouncing terrorism while ignoring the Israeli state terror employed in the occupied territories and beyond. Livni’s hypocrisy is particularly striking as her parents were key members of Irgun, the right-wing Jewish group that carried out the single most deadly terrorist act in Israel/Palestine, the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Despite growing evidence of their use, the Israeli military are simply evasive on whether they used white phosphorous shells, banned as a weapon of war in civilian areas.

The Israeli elite continually manipulate the memory of the Holocaust to try to silence critics and, more importantly, play on the fears of Israeli Jews. But the tragedy for the Jews in Israel is that they are in a situation where, as long as capitalism and exploitation remains, they face repeated wars and the fear of being ‘pushed into the sea’ if they are defeated. Until they see an alternative, many Israeli Jews will have a siege mentality that can lead to support for their government’s aggression.
Punished for voting the ‘wrong way’
THE HISTORY OF the current cycle of military operations dates back to January 2006 when Israel fired artillery shells into Gaza following Hamas’ victory in the elections, with 44% of the vote and 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament. This vote shocked the Israeli government which hoped that its 2005 withdrawal from Gaza would enable the pliant Fatah leadership to run the area.


Fearing that Hamas’ calls for resistance would undermine its plans, the Israeli government sought to effect regime change in Gaza. Immediately, attempts began to undermine Hamas by turning the Gaza population against it. These did not succeed. A US-backed attempt to stage a coup against Hamas, later documented in the US magazine Vanity Fair, was thwarted in June 2007 by Hamas ousting Fatah from Gaza. However, in the West Bank the more dominant Fatah, aided by the Israeli regime, increasingly sought to suppress Hamas supporters. Today, over 40 Hamas MPs are imprisoned, while others have been assassinated.

Hypocritically, the imperialists denounce Hamas’ June 2007 action and justify the subsequent tightened blockade of Gaza. This is despite the admission by the main Middle East advisor to the then US vice-president Dick Cheney that, “what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen”. The imperialist powers and the corrupt Arab regimes fully backed these moves against Hamas, fearing that its success would boost opposition throughout the Middle East.


When it suits them the imperialist powers speak about ‘democracy’, but not when it produces results they do not like. None of the major powers have commented on the current attempt to ban Palestinian parties from standing in February’s Israeli election. As the Palestinians, in imperialism’s view, voted the ‘wrong way’, no reference is made to Hamas’ 2006 election victory and it is just repeatedly denounced as a terror group. Thus, Egypt closed the Rafah crossing into Gaza while the Israeli government withheld tax receipts owed to the Palestinian authorities, cutting the number of trucks carrying humanitarian supplies. Soon there was a series of Israeli and Hamas attacks and counter-attacks.
。

In explaining and opposing the Israeli-US-Arab assault, socialists do not give political support to Hamas. Despite its anti-imperialist and anti-corruption rhetoric, Hamas is a pro-capitalist, movement. It seeks to impose its own particular religious views on society and can ruthlessly suppress its opponents among Palestinians. Hamas’ policies and tactics will ultimately set back the struggle for Palestinian liberation. Its present support is because many Palestinians see the Hamas leaders as much less corrupt than their Fatah counterparts and more militant in their language against Israeli aggression. The hypocrisy of the Israeli government’s demonization of Hamas is that, originally, the Israeli secret services supported Hamas’ foundation in order to undermine its stronger rival at the time, the secular PLO. But, as happened with the CIA and Saudi-funded ‘Islamic resistance’ in Afghanistan, what was intended as a pawn became too powerful and a threat to their former sponsors. But opposition to Hamas’ policies, and helping to build workers’ organisations that can end the conflict in the interests of the working class, oppressed and poor, is not in contradiction to resisting the Israeli, US and other imperialist governments.

A carefully laid trap
Last year, the firing of missiles from Gaza by Hamas and other Palestinian groups were only one of the breaches of the six-month ‘calm’ – which the Israeli military used to carefully prepare Operation Cast Lead. Prior to the ‘calm’, the Israeli government steadily imposed a tighter and tighter blockade of Gaza, aided by the regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In late 2005, workers from Gaza were mostly barred from entering Israel to work. Then Gaza’s commercial trade was massively restricted and, finally, from mid-2006, humanitarian aid was squeezed. The result was that last year Gaza received only 25% of the imported supplies it received in 2005. This was why one of the main demands of Gazans was a lifting of the blockade. The hundreds of tunnels dug under Gaza’s borders are not mainly for weapon smuggling, as Israeli and western governments claim, but to try to overcome the effects of the blockade.

This siege was tightened even more towards the end of last year. The Wall Street Journal reported that “between November 5 and the start of the most recent conflict, an average of 16 trucks a day were allowed into Gaza, down from 123 a day in October and 475 a day in May 2007”. (8 January) The 5 November date is significant, as it was the day after the Israeli military raid that started the countdown to the latest assault. Effectively, the Israeli government put Gazans on starvation rations: the UN says it requires about 40 trucks daily to meet Gazans’ minimal needs. This was why even the UN spoke of Israel’s ‘collective punishment’ of Gaza.

The economic siege and military raids provoked Hamas into rejecting a continuation of the six month ‘calm’ unless the border was opened, and resuming missile attacks into southern Israel. The Hamas leadership effectively fell into this trap and made it politically easier for the Israeli government to launch its pre-election war.

This trap was triggered by the provocation of the first significant breach in the ‘calm’ when, on 4 November, an Israeli raid killed six Hamas members. The Israeli military claimed that it had intelligence that a tunnel was being dug for the purpose of abducting Israeli soldiers.

What happened next was recorded by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an organisation whose material is published by the Israeli government. Having previously recorded only eleven rockets and 15 mortar shells fired from Gaza in the four months between July and October, the ITIC reported that “during the six months of the lull, the terrorist organisations fired 223 rockets and 139 mortar shells”, with most of them fired “during the six weeks between November 4 and December 19”.


Clearly, the 4 November raid changed the situation, as it was intended to do. It seems clear that the Israeli government was working to a timetable of preparing for action in the run-up to the 10 February election, an election called at the end of October.

There are many reports that Hamas wanted to maintain the truce, while demanding that the blockade be lifted. It sent a delegation to Cairo in mid-December to discuss this. Around the same time, former US president Jimmy Carter met Khaled Meshal, the Syrian-based chairman of the Hamas political bureau, in Damascus. Meshal indicated that Hamas was willing to go back to the ceasefire, “if there was a sign that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza”. A few days later, Yuval Diskin, head of Israel’s security agency, Shin Bet, told the 21 December meeting of the Israeli cabinet: “Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce”. While Hamas leaders kept saying they would extend the truce if the crossings were opened, the Israeli and Egyptian governments refused to do so.


It seems that the barrage of rockets that Hamas fired after the truce ended on 19 December was not necessarily the start of a long offensive. The ITIC said that the attacks peaked on 24 December. In other words, the attacks subsided before the Israeli air force launched Operation Cast Lead on 27 December. The Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram (20 January) quoted Meshal as saying that Hamas only expected a three-day military response. Instead, there was a 22-day slaughter.

Because of this misjudgement, and because Hamas is not based on the mobilisation of the masses, it fell into this provocation. It could have mobilised the population in Gaza around its main demand of reopening the Gaza border, as agreed in the ceasefire plan. A mass mobilisation to the border with Egypt demanding that it be opened could not have been described as terrorism. Such action, combined with an appeal to Egyptians for support, would have put the Mubarak regime in an impossible position, either having to open the border or face revolt.

This is not a dream. Less than a year ago, after a hole was blown in the border near Rafah, mass action secured free travel for eleven days until Hamas agreed to its re-closure. In December, the Hamas leaders hoped that firing a few hundred missiles would change the situation. Instead this gave the Israeli government the excuse it had wanted to launch a pre-election war. The mass action that kept the border open in January/February last year was an example, like the two intifadas, that this form of struggle is the key to Palestinian liberation. Over time, the policies and tactics of Hamas will start to be questioned, as were Fatah’s previously.

The collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza – by siege and military action – has only deepened the hostility towards Israel. It has not undermined Hamas or strengthened Fatah’s position. It has united Palestinians against Israel. However, the Israeli military may be counting on war-weariness to create a more submissive mood. It seems that there is in Gaza a combination of despair and desire for revenge, with Hamas leaders anxious to show that the Israelis are responsible for any renewed fighting.
Any chance of a deal?
It is possible that the popular jailed Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti, may play a role in future developments. Barghouti’s popularity grew during the second intifada, at the beginning of this century, as a leader of Tanzim, a Fatah armed branch. Jailed by the Israelis he split from Fatah to form a new party, al-Mustaqbal (The Future). He ran on a joint list with Fatah in the January 2006 elections. Later, Barghouti helped draft the joint agreement by prominent imprisoned Palestinian leaders from most groupings, including Hamas. This statement, the National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners, put forward the basis for a Palestinian national unity government and a deal with Israel. Barghouti could yet be released in an attempt by imperialism to involve the more popular leaders in some kind of deal.

But even a temporary deal depends on the situation in Israel. Despite the attempt by the government to present the Gaza war as a victory, the war is still unlikely to save the Kadima-Labour coalition, and a Likud-led government could attempt an even more aggressive attitude. Despite the wishes of some imperialist powers for a settlement that allows for the formation of two states, key sections of the Israeli elite will not allow any moves towards the formation of a viable Palestinian state. They fear that such a state, even the attempt to form one, would add a new destabilising factor into the region.
Nevertheless, within Israel there will be increased questioning of the war. While such questioning came quickly after the discredited 2006 Lebanon war, it may take a bit longer now as the Gaza war is being presented as a success. But, inevitably, the question will be asked: what is the long-term future? Although there was overwhelming Israeli support for the attack, mainly because of the missiles and Hamas’ previous suicide bomb strategy in the 1990s, there was a minority in opposition, including some in the military. In Tel Aviv and Jaffa there were sizeable joint Palestinian–Jewish demonstrations against the war. Even among the war’s supporters there was no support for a long term reoccupation of Gaza.


Over time, Israeli Jews will ask: what has really been achieved? The polarisation in Israeli society will continue. The extreme nationalists will demand further action against the Palestinians. Others will feel growing revulsion at the mass killings of civilians, especially children, as full news of what happened is reported. Such a development could be cut across if there is a major resumption of missile attacks, or new suicide attacks, in an attempt to show the Israeli state that it has not won.

The siege mentality and the legacy of the Holocaust are powerful issues which are regularly exploited by the Israeli elite. Despite the cynical exploitation, these are real factors that have to be taken into account if this deadlock is to be broken in the interests of working people and the poor. Unless a viable alternative is offered to Israeli Jews the vast majority will fight with all means if they think that their very existence is threatened.

A weakened Israel
Israeli jewry is not a homogeneous bloc. There are increasingly sharp class divisions, especially after the neo-liberal dismantling of many parts of the welfare state. From the formation of Israel there have been racial divisions. The original Israeli elite discriminated against Jews from Arab countries who made up over 45% of the migrants into Israel until 1995. The past decade has seen important workers’ and students’ struggles, including big strikes and demonstrations, which are likely to be repeated as a result of the unfolding world economic disaster. If Likud again pursues neo-liberal policies it could quickly lead to class battles developing. These could carry within them possibilities for building a genuine workers’ movement as a fighting force in Israel, and also as a step towards common struggles by Israeli and Palestinian workers.

Internationally, mounting revulsion against the savagery of the assault on Gaza has weakened Israel’s position, especially as it comes after the 2006 Lebanon war. This may be used by those sections of world imperialism that see the Israeli government’s policies as destabilizing and wish for some attempt at a ‘settlement’.
It is likely that the new Obama administration’s initiative will try to go down this road, calling for some Israeli withdrawal from lands occupied after the 1967 war and, perhaps, making contact with Hamas to seek to involve them in some kind of Palestinian government of national unity. Before this war, Olmert argued for a ‘land for peace’ deal, which the Obama administration may now push for. However, while these moves would be made with great fanfare and raise hopes, at the end of the day, they will prove to be limited. No deal along these lines would challenge the domination of capitalism, including Israel’s regional strength. Undoubtedly, the Palestinian workers and poor will find themselves betrayed, yet again.

This war has had a huge effect on opinion in Arab countries. The mass of Arabs were furious, but did not see concretely what could be done. Even if there were only limited protests on the streets, the impact of this war will be felt over the next period.
Hamas is clearly seen as a threat to Middle East regimes. The ties between Hamas, a Sunni movement, and Iran are seen by the pro-US regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia as opening a way for the Shia Iranian leadership to gain influence in predominately Sunni countries. Hamas’ anti-corruption and anti-imperialist propaganda that was so effective against Fatah can also inspire opposition to the rotten and undemocratic regimes tied to imperialism. One US Brookings Institute analyst said that “Hamas has never had this much legitimacy”. This was reflected in the attendance of Meshal at the 15 January Arab and Iranian summit in Doha, Qatar. This meeting again showed the divisions among Arab states as the Egyptian and Saudi Arabian regimes did not attend.

This war has set the scene for more turmoil in the Middle East, especially for those regimes that effectively supported this attack and the 2006 assault on Lebanon. Obama may try to involve a larger number of Arab regimes in an attempt to reach agreement on different issues, but agreement is not the same as a settlement.

The root causes of the conflict in the Middle East lie in capitalism’s inability to meet the social and economic needs of the population, its inability to resolve the conflicting national questions, and the continual efforts by the imperialist nations to maintain a grip over an economically and strategically vital region. These have deepened the national conflicts throughout the region because they cannot be resolved without the overthrowing of the ruling elites and capitalism. Until this is done there will be no end to the periodic wars, repression and deprivation that extends through much of the Middle East.

The basis for peace
To some, this latest war may seem as yet one more in an apparently endless series of conflicts that has swept the region for over 60 years. Faced with the seemingly intractable conflict between Jews and Palestinians some may draw the conclusion that there is no way out and that the peoples in the Middle East are doomed to suffer one calamity after another.

This is not the view of socialists. The mass of the Middle Eastern population want to live in peace and security. The CWI believes that genuine peace is achievable. However, this is only possible if working people – Palestinian and Israeli Jewish – negotiate a deal on the basis of recognising their common interests, and building a socialist alternative as a way to achieve them.


This can only be achieved by the development of independent action and organisation by the working class and poor in the Palestinian territories, Israel and the region. Such movements would have to stand against capitalism and the corrupt regional elites, and in defence of the national rights of all working people if they are to succeed. They should defend the idea that all working people should benefit from the wealth of the Middle East. In this way, trust and cooperation could be built between the two sides, opening the way to genuine peace. Without such socialist movements the ruling elites will maintain their rule by exploiting the fears of the masses, and the region will face a continued cycle of bloody conflict.

Against the interests of their local rulers and imperialism such organisations could fight for a socialist solution – a genuinely independent socialist Palestine that can satisfy the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and which could exist alongside a socialist Israel. Only within a socialist framework can the plight of the Palestinians be resolved, with open borders redrawn in accordance with the wishes of local people, a shared capital in Jerusalem, and with guaranteed democratic rights for all national minorities. Only with the national rights of the Palestinians and Israelis resolved would the question of the right to return of those who wish to not be seen as a threat. A socialist Palestine and a socialist Israel could, in turn, be part of a free and voluntary socialist confederation of the region.
The terrible suffering of Gaza over the past weeks, coming on top of years of oppression, struggles and failure to secure fundamental change, is sure to provoke discussion and debate among Palestinians over what to do next. The rottenness of the Fatah leadership and the limitations of Hamas will result in a new search for a way forward in which the ideas of mass struggle and a socialist alternative will be able to find an echo.

Within Israel it is significant that, from the beginning of this war, there was opposition to it with joint Jewish and Palestinian protests. However, in Israel this opposition, in which the CWI played a role, was in a small minority and suffered repression, which was particularly aimed at the Israeli Arabs who protested. Nevertheless, this Israeli opposition laid down a marker that will come to be recognised as it becomes clear that this pre-planned election war, and any future wars, will not guarantee security for Israeli Jews.
The experience of these brutal events, the immense suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza, the cynicism of the Israeli leaders, the rottenness of the Arab leaders, coupled with the inevitable impact of the world economic crisis, will create the opportunity to begin to build socialist organisations that can fight against oppression, poverty and capitalism.