Dark clouds of surrender hang over Gaza City

[前进Advance]

In recent times, the Palestinian national liberation struggle led by Hamas has been heading in a direction unfavorable to the Palestinian people, with Hamas facing a serious danger of disarmament and surrender. On January 30th, Hamas announced that it was ready to transfer the governance of Gaza to the “Palestinian Technical Bureaucracy.” Although this committee is composed entirely of Palestinians, its leadership consists of high-ranking officials from the former pro-Jordan River West Bank Palestinian comprador government—former Deputy Ministers of Transportation and Communications and Planning, Shaas. The so-called governance authority of this committee can only manage health, education, judiciary, and public services, with no real power. Moreover, above this committee are the “Founding Executive Committee,” mainly responsible for investment and diplomacy, and the “Gaza Executive Committee,” responsible for supervising the “Palestinian Technical Bureaucracy.” These two committees are tasked with assisting imperialist capital export to Gaza and effectively controlling the “Technical Bureaucracy,” respectively. Above these is the “Peace Committee” chaired by Trump. None of these three committees holding actual power include any representatives of the Palestinian people; they are all representatives of imperialist countries, big bourgeoisie, and imperialist pawns. This directly indicates that if the “Palestinian Technical Bureaucracy” is allowed to “govern Gaza,” it would mean imperialist control over Gaza and the plundering of its people.

Most importantly, the United Nations manipulated by U.S. imperialism has also approved the establishment of an international peacekeeping force, directly led by U.S. military commanders, responsible for “training and reviewing the new Palestinian police force, ensuring border security; facilitating the demilitarization process in Gaza to stabilize the security environment, including destroying and preventing the reconstruction of military, terrorist, and offensive infrastructure, and permanently disarming non-state armed groups.” In reality, this is entirely aimed at suppressing the Palestinian people and completely disarming Palestine, turning into a colonial army. Although Hamas has not yet shown any willingness to disarm, it is gradually compromising with the colonizers—handing over “governance rights”—which is essentially allowing imperialism to control Gaza. This is a betrayal of the Palestinian people and their national interests.

Not only does the future arrangement of Gaza’s governance reveal the aggressive ambitions of U.S. imperialism and Hamas’s weakness and compromise, but even before a complete ceasefire, the provocations by reactionary forces of Israel and the U.S. have demonstrated this point. Currently, the ceasefire line—the “yellow line”—remains within Gaza. During the four months of ceasefire, Israel has not truly stopped fighting; within 111 days since the ceasefire agreement took effect, Israel violated the ceasefire 1,450 times, launching attacks that caused 524 deaths and 1,360 injuries. Yet, Hamas has not resisted these provocations, with no official response or counterattack, and continues to emphasize its adherence to the ceasefire agreement. Despite the reality that following the imperialist “peace plan” will inevitably cost countless Palestinian lives, Hamas’s current attitude is to sell out Palestine’s national interests within the framework set by imperialism, step by step heading toward disarmament and surrender.

The ultimate downfall of Hamas as a national bourgeois organization is closely related to its class nature. On one hand, as a party of the national bourgeoisie, it represents the interests of the bourgeoisie, dissatisfied with Israel’s control over Palestine, seeking to establish an independent Palestinian state to ensure sufficient labor exploitation and a market for goods—“the market is the first school for the bourgeoisie to learn nationalism.” Therefore, they have sharp contradictions with Israel, united with the Palestinian people in opposing Israel’s colonial rule. With some support from the masses, Hamas expelled Israeli militias in 2005 and Fatah in 2007, turning Gaza into a “liberated zone.” However, they are still the exploiting class, still exploiting the Palestinian people, and cannot fully mobilize the masses. These national bourgeoisie and imperialists, even Israeli colonizers, are intertwined—Gaza’s water and electricity supply almost entirely depend on external transport, controlled by Israel; without these, production is nearly impossible. Originally, Palestinian soldiers and civilians, filled with class hatred toward Israeli colonizers, achieved many victories after the outbreak of war. But under the threat of being encircled by Israeli militias and facing “hellish consequences” if the U.S.-Israeli reactionaries rejected the “peace plan,” Hamas ultimately chose the path of compromise and surrender. This again demonstrates that in the era of imperialism, the national bourgeoisie cannot lead a successful national liberation war. Although Hamas has also taken the road of capitulation, the Palestinian people will not bow before Israeli butchers. Who dug the tunnels that Hamas relies on for survival and connectivity? The Gaza people. Who are the fighters on the front lines during the Al-Aqsa Flood operation? The Gaza people. Who is composed of the armed Hamas militants that faced and defeated heavily armed Israeli armored units? The Gaza people. Who bears the burden of blockade by Israel and Western imperialism, persists under extremely harsh living and working conditions, and supports Hamas through labor? The Gaza people.

Hamas’s senior leaders, residing safely abroad, have not dug a single tunnel in Gaza, nor destroyed a single Israeli tank. They have no qualification and cannot represent the Gaza people in ending their resistance movement. Past Fatah also degenerated and surrendered, but the Palestinian people did not surrender; they launched several uprisings, severely striking the arrogance of Israeli colonizers, which ultimately led to the emergence of Hamas, then still a revolutionary national bourgeois organization. These bourgeoisie control capital, and they can choose to invest elsewhere and maintain their exploitative position, but the Palestinian workers and peasants have no such opportunity—they are the most oppressed and have no way out. If Hamas disarms and surrenders completely, they will still fight; within them, revolutionary organizations will inevitably emerge to lead the Palestinian people toward complete liberation.

[锡霍特山脉]

期待成立巴勒斯坦共产党组织

[红前哨1871]

Yes, there is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). The PFLP was said to have been very influential in the 1970s.

[螺丝钉]

If there are really two organizations adhering to Marxism-Leninism in Palestine as you say, then why haven’t there been any significant upheavals yet? Moreover, your so-called “Palestinian Democratic Liberation Front” even participated in the “High-Level Dialogue Between the Communist Party of China and Political Parties of the World” convened by the China Reform in 2020. Being able to cooperate with China Reform indicates that they have long been corrected and are not truly Communist at all.

[二心集]

Having a large influence refers to about 23 million people? In the overview of various countries, it is mentioned that in the 1970s, the people’s militia also cooperated with Fatah to conduct guerrilla warfare, but they were not the main force, and within the militia, there were also agents of the Soviet Union, old officers funded by the Rassemblement Socialiste Révolutionnaire, and the militia opposed the idea of building socialism in one country, engaging in hijacking and terrorism, which is not at all Communist.

[龙志飞]

Both the Human Front and the People’s Front organizations are not very effective. The flavor of impulsive conspiracy typical of petty bourgeoisie is too strong (the Munich hijacking was carried out by the Human Front, and afterward Western imperialists used it to smear the Palestinian resistance movement as terrorists slaughtering civilians). Moreover, their scale is not large, and they are not integrated with the masses, so don’t expect much from them.

[红前哨1871]

What do comrades think of Hezbollah in Lebanon? They have made many contributions to the fight against Israeli invaders, but they have been too close to Iran and the Assad regime.

[红色雅各宾]

It’s not “walking too close,” but Hezbollah itself is an Iranian proxy and a member of the so-called “Resistance Axis” led by Iran. The logos of Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran are the same.

[十月的风]

Because they are Iran’s agents and comprador, they can only carry out some border harassment activities normally. When Israel really carried out targeted killings against them, they collapsed, because they are not armed forces of the people at all, but merely tools of imperialist rivalry, with only financial relationships from top to bottom.

[红前哨1871]

There are issues with Hezbollah, but haven’t Nasrallah and others made significant contributions to the anti-imperialist cause?

[红色雅各宾]

Based on what you’re saying, ISIS is still fighting the United States, so does that also count as “contributing to anti-imperialism”? Social imperialism is the worst form of imperialism; if you don’t oppose this, there’s nothing to say about “anti-imperialism.”

[螺丝钉]

How should we analyze the reasons for the emergence of terrorist organizations like ISIS? It seems to have a strong religious undertone, and I don’t know how to judge it.

[红色雅各宾]

Religion is not mysterious; it is simply a form of social ideology. ISIS adopts Islamic extremism because it best serves the interests of the landowners, comprador bourgeoisie, and warlords in these countries and regions. In fact, according to the reactionary nature of Confucianism, the Zhongxiu (Middle-Refinement) regime can also be considered a giant “terrorist organization.”

[红前哨1871]

Although Hezbollah has many problems, I believe that ISIS and Hezbollah are fundamentally different, and confusing the two would benefit imperialism. Hezbollah is a representative of the interests of Lebanon’s Shia poor, bankrupt small producers, and part of the national bourgeoisie. It has a tight social welfare organization, schools, hospitals, and enjoys deep mass support in Lebanon. Moreover, it largely exists to resist Israel’s illegal occupation of territory. ISIS is different; it is mainly composed of transnational thugs, comprador class, former officers, and religious fanatics. Furthermore, ISIS is to some extent tolerated and even supported by Israel. Former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, made it quite clear, saying: “From Israel’s perspective, if one evil force must prevail, let it be the Sunni evil forces [ISIS and other organizations].” I see Hezbollah as an organization of national resistance. Although they have religious limitations and petty bourgeois wavering, and are not a thoroughly proletarian party, the Lebanese proletariat should temporarily unite with them to oppose the revanchist invaders (the main contradiction). If my view has any problems, comrades, please point them out, because I may not have completely climbed out of the quagmire of campism.

[螺丝钉]

I don’t know much about foreign organizations, but I looked into which countries recognize and deny that Hezbollah is a “terrorist organization.” It can be seen that the main countries supporting or directly aiding Hezbollah are the Chinese and Russian imperialist groups, while the main countries of the American imperialist group are uniformly opposed to Hezbollah and have designated it as a “terrorist organization.” I think if it were truly some kind of national resistance organization, the Chinese and Russian imperialist groups would not support it at all. In old China, the American imperialist group did not want China to be independent, opposing the Chinese Communist Party, which was based on the proletariat and peasants and aimed to form a united front with the national bourgeoisie. The ambassador’s quote you cited only shows that Hezbollah is a puppet organization of the Chinese and Russian imperialist groups, which is why the US imperialists oppose Hezbollah. If you recognize Hezbollah as a “national resistance organization,” then the conclusion must be that the Chinese and Russian imperialist groups support national independence and national liberation. Isn’t that absurd? Moreover, having social welfare organizations, hospitals, and the like does not prove that Hezbollah represents the interests of the masses. The Chinese Revisionists also run health insurance, social security, and promote “community construction,” but are they doing these things to serve the Chinese people? Lebanon’s population is now about five million, Hezbollah has only about forty to fifty thousand members, with an armed force of about ten to twenty thousand— is this群众基础 (mass foundation) really solid?

[红前哨1871]

I still think there are logical flaws in this perspective, and this is how I see it.

1. During World War II, the American and British imperialists even to some extent aided socialist Soviet Union to fight against Nazi fascists of Germany, Italy, and Japan (although it’s said that the military supplies aid from the US was quite poor, but that’s another topic). According to your logic, was the Soviet Union also a “running dog” of the US and UK at that time?

2. In World War I, Germany agreed to let Lenin pass through German territory on his way back to Russia. Does that mean he was a running dog of German imperialism?

My point of view (if there are inappropriate parts, please point them out): Hezbollah’s resistance against Israeli aggression objectively undermines US imperialism’s hegemony in the Middle East. The support from the Chinese and Russian imperialist groups is based on the imperialist dog-eat-dog strategy of rivalry. Moreover, the extent of support is hard to specify; after all, the screenshot you posted looks like Wikipedia, which is definitely biased towards US imperialism. In fact, there are quite a few collusions between China and Israel’s fascist Zionism, such as:

• Shanghai International Port Group (Shanghai Port Group) contracted the operation rights of the Haifa Port in Israel for 25 years.
• China Railway Tunnels Bureau and China Tuba Group built the Tel Aviv Red Line light rail.
• In 2014, Chinese-backed Bright Dairy acquired Tnuva, Israel’s largest dairy company. This means Chinese capital has penetrated into Israel’s vital national economy.
• Israel is a technological laboratory for US imperialism in the Middle East. Through “innovative cooperation” with Israeli universities and tech companies, China has obtained a large amount of technology used for stability maintenance and industrial monitoring.

It can be seen that even if China supports Hezbollah, it is hypocritical—just half-hearted political opportunism.

[十月的风]

So, isn’t the Great War of imperialism also a contribution to anti-imperialism? Both sides’ imperialists are opposing and attacking each other’s imperialism, so is that anti-imperialism? As for Nasrallah, being Iran’s representative, and thus a puppet of the China-Russia imperialist bloc, opposing the US imperialist bloc, is just to increase the presence of the China-Russia imperialist group in the Middle East and to control more colonies. This is not at all an anti-imperialist cause. The existence of these comprador elements is inevitably to fiercely suppress genuine revolutionary factions that oppose imperialism domestically. If they use the anti-imperialist banner to deceive people, they will even more use the working people at home as tools, turning them into a wedding dress for China and Russia’s rivalry. What anti-imperialism is this? Isn’t this the most thorough form of imperialism?

[十月的风]

This is a Baidu Baike entry that leans more towards the perspective of the Middle East, which instead further illustrates its nature:

Hezbollah follows the ideology of Khomeini and advocates establishing a government in Lebanon in the form of an Islamic republic. The campaign slogan in 2003 was to establish an Islamic government through peaceful and democratic means. It supports the elimination of Israel and cooperates with other Islamic militant organizations such as Hamas for this purpose. In addition to its military activities, the party also engages in a series of social activities, such as running orphanages, establishing schools, building cultural centers, operating hospitals and clinics, and running construction companies. Mosques are its main activity venues, primarily in southern Lebanon and in Shia-majority areas like Beka’a. Hezbollah has received substantial support from Iran and Syria since its founding. Iran, a country predominantly Shia, has Hezbollah as a Shia armed political party, and both Iran and Hezbollah strongly oppose Israel. Due to this connection, Iran trains Hezbollah soldiers and provides political, military, and financial support. Hezbollah’s spiritual leader, Fadlallah, described Iran as the base of the Islamic movement; he has had over 30 years of friendship with Iran’s religious leader Khamenei, reflecting Iran’s influence.

[烽火Flame]

The example you gave clearly shows that your logic is flawed. Are you not insulting revolutionaries? Under the conditions existing in modern socialist countries, the four major contradictions in the world are primarily the contradiction between socialism and capitalism. If you say that Britain and the United States supported socialist Soviet Union to fight against fascists in Germany, Italy, Japan, and France, then you are completely talking nonsense. Churchill himself said he hoped to see Germany lying on the operating table, but he also hoped to see Russia in the morgue. After the Soviet Union and the United States announced their cooperation and joined the United Nations organization, Britain and the US promised to do so in 1942. They landed in France to open a second front to ease pressure on the Soviet Union, but in order to make Nazi Germany exhaust the Soviet Union, they delayed this until June 1944, and it was also for grabbing territory. Your claim that Britain and the US supported the Soviet Union is even a joke; the total aid from Britain and the US to the Soviet Union was less than 4% of the Soviet wartime economy’s most difficult period’s gross domestic product. Britain and the US constantly wanted to destroy the Soviet Union, not support it. For them, Nazi Germany could exist, but the Soviet Union absolutely could not.

On the other hand, your statement that Germany allowed Lenin to pass through German territory on his way back to Russia has a tone of some kind of Lenin conspiracy theory. Does Germany therefore support socialism? The Bolsheviks’ original plan was for Lenin to go through Britain and then to Finland to return to Russia. But because Britain wanted Russia to continue the war to the end, they did not agree. On the other hand, Germany hoped Lenin would return quickly to “mess up Russia,” so that Russia would withdraw from the war. Do you think Germany would support socialism? If Germany had known from the start that Lenin’s return would lead the revolution to succeed in establishing Soviet Russia, they might have directly assassinated Lenin. What you might not know is that Germany was the earliest imperialist power among the major powers to incite subversion activities within Soviet Russia.

Looking at your use of these two examples to prove that Hezbollah is a民族抵抗组织 (ethnic resistance organization) is even more ridiculous. If Hezbollah and Hamas are the same, then why do China and Russia not support Hamas but support Hezbollah? Ultimately, Hezbollah is just a puppet regime of the two imperialist countries, China and Russia, a reactionary and evil comprador regime. It stands on the same side as Iran, a theocratic dictatorship, following the same doctrine, long supported and controlled by Iran, operating in the Middle East. Do you think it is anti-imperialist? Don’t talk nonsense here just to save face.

[前进Advance]

It’s not surprising. Historically, China and Russia tend to invest their capital wherever they see profit, especially in these Middle Eastern countries. After all, this isn’t a region where China and the U.S. are primarily competing, nor is it their most core colonial territory. Would China or Russia really pour large amounts of capital into Lebanon, where capitalism is still underdeveloped and constantly under threat of bombing? Hezbollah itself says it follows Khomeini’s ideology and calls for establishing an Islamic republic-style government in Lebanon. They aim to learn from Iran’s landlord-bourgeoisie class and restore feudal production relations in Lebanon. Such a reactionary regime, claiming to fight Israel, is frankly too laughable. Therefore, Hezbollah hasn’t achieved any real victory; they only dare to fight a bit in the civil war but never risk a direct conflict with Israel. Hamas once expelled Israeli forces and Fatah collaborators from Gaza, but after Hezbollah was bombed, they no longer dare to clash openly with Israel. Doesn’t this clearly reveal their reactionary nature?