The left and the Palestinians: Part I – The Soviets
[NOTE: This is the first of a two-part or perhaps three-part series.]
A great many people seem surprised that the left is so strongly allied with the Palestinians, and are their main champions in the West. After all, the two groups would seem antithetical on a host of important values. The left claims to support the rights of LGBTQ people and yet the Palestinians are downright hostile to them – as well as to sexual freedom in general and women’s rights, which are other purported leftist causes. Many leftists are anti-religion as well, whereas a very restrictive form of Islam prevails among most Palestinians.
And yet the alliance between the left and the Palestinians is not only there, but it goes way back. Take a look at this, written in 2003 by a Romanian named Ion Mihai Pacepa, head of intelligence there who had defected to the West. He describes a very direct connection between the Soviets and the Palestinians [emphasis mine]:
I was given the KGB’s “personal file” on Arafat. He was an Egyptian bourgeois turned into a devoted Marxist by KGB foreign intelligence. The KGB had trained him at its Balashikha special-ops school east of Moscow and in the mid-1960s decided to groom him as the future PLO leader. First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat’s birth in Cairo, replacing them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth.
The KGB’s disinformation department then went to work on Arafat’s four-page tract called “Falastinuna” (Our Palestine), turning it into a 48-page monthly magazine for the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah. Arafat had headed al-Fatah since 1957. The KGB distributed it throughout the Arab world and in West Germany, which in those days played host to many Palestinian students….
Arafat was an important undercover operative for the KGB. Right after the 1967 Six Day Arab-Israeli war, Moscow got him appointed to chairman of the PLO. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, a Soviet puppet, proposed the appointment. In 1969 the KGB asked Arafat to declare war on American “imperial-Zionism” during the first summit of the Black Terrorist International, a neo-Fascist pro-Palestine organization financed by the KGB and Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. It appealed to him so much, Arafat later claimed to have invented the imperial-Zionist battle cry. But in fact, “imperial-Zionism” was a Moscow invention, a modern adaptation of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and long a favorite tool of Russian intelligence to foment ethnic hatred. The KGB always regarded anti-Semitism plus anti-imperialism as a rich source of anti-Americanism….
In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. “You simply have to keep on pretending that you’ll break with terrorism and that you’ll recognize Israel — over, and over, and over,” Ceausescu told him for the umpteenth time….
You can find similar assertions about Abbas here.
There’s no way for me to prove that these things are true, but they certainly seem to be in line with Soviet propaganda of the era. For example:
Soviet anti-Zionism is an anti-Zionist and pro-Arab doctrine promulgated in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. While the Soviet Union initially pursued a pro-Zionist policy after World War II due to its perception that the Jewish state would be socialist and pro-Soviet, its outlook on the Arab–Israeli conflict changed as Israel began to develop a close relationship with the United States and aligned itself with the Western Bloc. Anti-Israel Soviet propaganda intensified after Israel’s sweeping victory in the 1967 Arab–Israeli War, and it was officially sponsored by the agitation and propaganda media of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as well as by the KGB. Among other charges, it alleged that Zionism was a form of racism. The Soviets framed their anti-Zionist propaganda in the guise of a study of modern Zionism, dubbed Zionology. …
In his 1969 book Beware! Zionism, Yuri Ivanov, the Soviet Union’s leading Zionologist, defined modern Zionism as follows:
“Modern Zionism is the ideology, a ramified system of organisations and the practical politics of the wealthy Jewish bourgeoisie which has closely allied itself with monopoly circles in the USA and other imperialist countries. The main content of Zionism is bellicose chauvinism and anti-communism.”
Soviet leaders said Soviet anti-Zionism was not antisemitic. As proof, they pointed to the fact that several prominent Zionologists were ethnic Jews representing an expert opinion.
Sound familiar?
More:
The meaning of the term Zionism was defined by the ruling Communist Party of the Soviet Union: “the main posits of modern Zionism are militant chauvinism, racism, anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism… overt and covert fight against freedom movements and the USSR.” …
The Israeli government was also referred to as a “terrorist regime” which “has raised terror to the level of state politics.”
Adopting the “chauvinism” and “racism” and “terrorist” accusations was an important move for the PLO in appealing to the Western left. And the Protocols accusations appealed to some disparate groups on the far right, as well. And who was it who helped invent – or at least laid the groundwork for – “anti-colonialism” and “postcolonial” theory? Why, those champions of freedom and national autonomy, the Soviets:
In accounts of the precursors of postcolonial theory a number of thinkers usually appear, such as Marx, Lenin, perhaps Mao Zedong, but definitely Frantz Fanon and C.L.R. James. Missing from this line-up is Stalin. It is convenient to ignore Stalin, since his name functions as a cipher for radical polarization, oscillating between veneration and demonization. Yet, a sober reassessment of Stalin will find that he is crucial not only for the prehistory of postcolonial theory, but also the theoretical and practical groundwork that postcolonial theory needed to repress in order to enable its own emergence.
The following study has three steps. First, it draws on the insightful work of Christina Petterson, which shows that postcolonial theory could arise only after the triumphalist ‘defeat’ of the Soviet Union and indeed the Eastern Bloc after 1989, or what she calls the dissolution of the so-called ‘Second World’. Second, it analyses the theory and practice of affirmative action in the Soviet Union, which was explicitly fostered by Stalin. Third, and crucially, it identifies the breakthrough from affirmative action to an anti-colonial position, which provided the justification for Soviet policies in assisting anti-colonial struggles throughout the world. These two features – affirmative action and anti-colonialism – enabled the historical conditions for post-colonialism, as well as the theoretical and practical realities that have been simultaneously repressed and appropriated by postcolonial theory.
Here you will find a densely jargon-filled more recent description of postcolonial theory. Note the prominence that academic Middle Eastern Studies took on as a path to promulgating this way of looking at the world:
However, for the theory to take shape as an analytic it needed something more than a binary exposition or a simple historical genealogy; it required an understanding of those power structures that governed the representation of colonized peoples. The text that gave a language and a methodology for the latter was Edward W. Said’s 1978 book, Orientalism. Although Said did not use the term “postcolonial theory” in the first edition of his work, his argument (after Foucault) of the links between discourse and power provided a framework within which a postcolonial theory could be given shape.
I already have a draft for a post about Said’s role in all of this; maybe it will form the basis for a Part III. However, a planned Part II will deal with how the Soviet propaganda line on Palestine was spread by Western leftists in the aftermath of the 1967 war and during the 70s.
It’s amazing how shared hatred and resentment can bridge almost any idealogical gap. Hitler’s Germany found common cause with the Japanese Empire againt the West during WWII, just as Soviets and Islamists did during the Cold War, and Islamists and the modern Left today I guess.
Fascinating.
It’s amazing how shared hatred and resentment can bridge almost any idealogical gap.
E.g., U.S. and Soviet Union in WW2.
The lesser enemy of my greater enemy is my ‘friend’. Once our greater enemy is destroyed, then my friend resumes being an enemy.
Of course he was a minor relative of the grand mufti hitlers enabler in the region one of whose chief aides was the father of the perpetrator of munich salameh
Thanks for this. I wonder why the current US leftists seem to go along with the anti-Russian stance of the Democratic party, if they are in a sense fellow-travellers with a tradition that should bring them into alliance with Putin.
Of course arafat had plenty of courtiers at the commodore hotel in beirut later in tunis (friedman among the worst) said thought arafat had gone back on the khartroum declaration which was restated by hamas (they both came from the brotherhood
@James S
A few reasons.
Firstly: Many of them ARE. You just don’t hear about them much now because they are something of a dirty, embarrassing secret for the left now. This is a Ukrainian-focused English Language Soros Front Group, but it details many of the overlaps. You also see it with others like the idiots at The Gray Zone and Zeman in Slovakia.
https://euromaidanpress.com/2015/02/17/putin-reaching-far-right-europe-not-forgotten-left/
https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/03/25/putin-winning-support-from-far-right-as-well-as-far-left-with-custom-targeted-propaganda-eidman-says/
Secondly: Putin is more leftist than one might believe (especially the “Traditionalist True Conservatives” who seem to think he is a bulwark against globalism rather than a co-conspirator) but he is still a corrupt Russian nationalist kakistocrat with a desire to one up others, which is why he has a love of rope a dope-ing Western politicians, and especially US POTUSes, made worse by the tendency of Foggy Bottom trying to push a US-Russia alliance. Which resulted in predictable trends of early first term US Presidents appeasing Putin, getting upstaged or backstabbed by him, and then turning against him.
Thirdly: The left has generally found it more useful to play the Russia Card to demonize and support crackdowns on domestic opposition than it has to cooperate with Putin (not that those two are entirely mutually exclusive, as Putin and Biden’s negotiations to help get Iran what it wants show, but they do show emphasis).
Theyve only done this in the last few years, as pointed out the list of politicians who groveled to the soviets were numerous throughout the cold war kerry biden panetta
Pingback:Instapundit » Blog Archive » NEO: The left and the Palestinians: Part I – The Soviets. A great many people seem surprised that
Nice write up. I’ve read something of this before. I’ve always believed Arafat was a corrupt Russian construct. I think Trump’s statement earlier this evening about the Abraham Accords is true. The Middle East was close to rejecting the perverse hatred of Israel that underlies the Palestinian cause and that is exacerbated and continued through the actions of Iran. This hatred distorts and damages the entire region. During the Trump Administration the Middle East was the closest it has ever been to a comprehensive peace. A second Trump term would have closed the deal.
Doug Santo
Ahwahnee, CA
made worse by the tendency of Foggy Bottom trying to push a US-Russia alliance
The CoDominion won’t happen, and they should give up trying to make it a thing.
the list of politicians who groveled to the soviets were numerous throughout the cold war kerry biden panetta
Ted Kennedy. Reached out to the Soviets to coordinate their efforts against Reagan.
Turtler,
I don’t recall Trump ‘…appeasing, getting upstaged or backstabbed by him…’
Ah, Turtler, you must be referring, if somewhat cryptically, to the poetically-inspired (Bee Gees, perhaps?) “looked into his eyes (or was that “looked into his soul”?) and saw….”—though at this point I can’t remember exactly what Dubya saw—AND/OR the more prosaic Hillaresqe “RESET”…(if with the rather more sinister Obamish”…will have more flexibility…” lurking in the background…or, for that matter, the forefront…)
– – – – – – – – – –
…even as Doug Santo offers (or rather, rehashes) that superb explanation as to why “Biden” HAD TO “BE ELECTED” “President” in 2020…
(…in other words, so that “he” could help the Mullahs in their pet project to take down both the Big AND Little Satans, something that Trump, that BYAD, BYAD MYAN, so UNGENEROUSLY—and, for many, so BOORISHLY—disrupted during that four-year interregnum, when HE had ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS being president…)
The conflict in Israel is not between the Jews and Arab masses but rather between the Jews and a handful of wealthy effendi families like the Husseinis (Mufti, Arafat), Khalidis (Obama’s buddy at Columbia), Nashashibis, and Nuseibahs. The y have dominated the fellahin, peasants, of the region for centuries and continue to dominate Palestinian society.
Don’t forget that the Arab (NOT Islamist) terrorists of the 1970s, like those who attacked the Olympics at Munich and engaged in a number of hijackings, assassinations, kidnappings, etc., were closely allied with the KGB and with other leftist KGB-supported terrorists, such as the Red Brigade, Baader-Meinhof, and Latin American revolutionary guerrilla movements. Peas in a pod.
My experience says you’re exactly right!
JimB — the terrorist groups were trained by the Soviets in camps in their client states.
Now the husseinis are circassians like the dynasty that ended with farouk in 52, not bedoiun which are what the palestinians purport to be
Of course joan peters thought they all come from albania, no matter like fidel was the bastard son on a fmr spanish soldier turned
Landowner as was his brother raul
Whose future wife vilma espin vouched for then snd the cias lyman kilpatrick believed them because she was the daughter of a bacardi exec
Much like bin laden was the product of one of the lesser wives a syrian so he thought himself an outcast
I don’t think Gamal abd el-Nasser was a Soviet puppet.
==
Said had the influence he did because academe itself is rotten. If academe had been healthy, he’d have been ignored outside the realm of comparative literature and his voice would not have mattered at Columbia outside his own department.
The conflict in Israel is not between the Jews and Arab masses but rather between the Jews and a handful of wealthy effendi families
==
This is a fiction you’re peddling.
The effendis seem to have millions of fans…
At a guess, I would say you’re not particularly religious? Because those of us who are, realize that religion is a far more powerful motivator than any material or even political consideration.
It’s the Islam, baby.
Art Deco and Beverly:
Well said. Totally agree.
Its a combo of religious and nationalism sentiments the british didnt generally interfere with land grants in that area
Beverly:
I am discussing how the LEFT – which is not religious – shaped the Palestinian message to the world so that it would appeal to leftists and many others around the world who could be activated in opposition to an Israel defined as racist and colonial. The post is not about the Palestinian motives, which are predominantly religious.
I believe that Farouk did come from an Albanian family (a descendent of Muhammed Ali—18th C.)
Then I thought maybe I should look it up in Wikipedia…and this is what they write:
(Truly an interesting dude…and a veritable poster child for multiculturalism and diversity…)
“…Early life and education
He was born as His Sultanic Highness Farouk bin Fuad, Hereditary Prince of Egypt and Sudan, on 11 February 1920 (Jumada al-Awwal 21, 1338 A.H.) at Abdeen Palace, Cairo, the eldest child of Sultan Fuad I (later King Fuad I) and his second wife, Nazli Sabri.[4][5] He had Albanian, Circassian, Turkish, French and Greek ancestry.[6][7][8] [9] Despite the Albanian origin of his house, Farouk in common with the other members of Egypt’s Ottoman elite had more Circassian blood in him as Mohammad Ali the Great and his successors were fond of their Circassian slave girls, which were one of the most prized possessions of an Ottoman official.[10] Farouk’s first languages were Egyptian Arabic, Turkish and French (the languages of the Egyptian elite), and he always thought of himself as an Egyptian rather than as an Arab, having no interest in Arab nationalism except as a way of increasing Egypt’s power in the Middle East….”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/world/middleeast/joan-peters-journalist-who-wrote-on-israeli-palestinian-conflict-dies-at-78.html
one of the few that stood against this was Moynihan (who often told hard truths)
as Fords UN ambassadors*, andrew young, his successor was stupid and corrupt
(he later turned out to be in pay of BCCI) and jean kirkpatrick, fought the good fight,
*DeBorchgrave made him a hero in the Spike, his roman a clef investigating many of these left wing networks including IPA
The left claims to support the rights of LGBTQ people
This is not an accurate statement.
There are many various parts of society from the rights to the left have the same position on this matter.
https://youtu.be/FxB0LHvS4fg
anti-Zionism is an anti-Zionist
Let’s make clear anti-Zionism is NOT antisemitism NOT anti-Jewish. this mixes the truth with falls.
Zionism is a nationalist movement, that has an identity of making a homeland on a land without people.
Zeo:
Take your propaganda elsewhere; you’re wasting your time here.
By the way, the fact that a group claims to support something like the rights of gay people doesn’t mean that no other group supports it. Logic 101.
For those who are interested in the topic of why anti-Zionism is usually anti-Semitism: see this as well as this.
An excellent insight into how insidious and far-reaching the plans and actions of worldwide Marxism are. They are very clever and persistent. They will use any group or ideology if they can see a way to subvert and undermine the Judeo-Christian, democratic, and free market values of the West. The Palestinians and other Arab groups have merely been useful idiots for them.
Johann Amadeus Metesky:
The conflict in Israel is not between the Jews and Arab masses but rather between the Jews and a handful of wealthy effendi families like the Husseinis
———————————–
There is/was a kernel of truth in this… when the architects of Oslo brought Arafat out of exile and gave him the West Bank as a prize, many old mideast hands bemoaned the opportunity to bring in some of these families, who had run Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan for a long time and were seen as more Westernized, less radical, and more practical. The theory was that as long as they got their status back – and a cut of the action – they would be more amenable to coexistence.
We’ll never know. As a resident of Samaria I can tell you that the less radicalized Arab workers curse Arafat and the thugs he brought back with him – they decimated the local clan leaders and basically oppressed the locals like the IRA.
The first-families theory has kinda-sorta worked out in relations between Jordan and Israel. Only recently have things been strained, as the royal family cemented and celebrated the Pali connection and identity.
Anti-Zionism isn’t the same as antisemitism. Here’s the history.
By Benjamin Moser
January 2, 2024 at 6:15 a.m. EST
neo on January 11, 2024 at 2:35 pm said:
Take your propaganda elsewhere;
Neo
the above statement should be forwarded to yourself to teach you that “as a law student” should have a wide/open mind open to discussion, not Blind and Deaf.
Zeo:
As I said, you’re wasting your time. I already posted links that explained why most anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and your comment wasn’t relevant or responsive to the issues raised there.
I also don’t have time for deceptive sock-puppet trolls like you.
yes that dissapointing on the part of the hashemites, seeing as abdallah’s grandfather, was killed by a bedouin, and then of course the black september uprising,
herzl was certainly not the majority view when it started, but subsequent events
punctuated the point, the bedouin tries like the nashibis had won some autonomy from the uprising against the Ottomans in 1843
and jabotinsky the theorist of the betar which would become the likud was probably the most realistic, re the husseinis the preceding mufti to haj amin was more open to jewish migrations,
the anecdote I was speaking about
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/madness-king-talal
this is perhaps why king hussein waited more than 40 years to do a deal with Israel
From Quillette: The Language of Soviet Propaganda: Progressive anti-Zionism and the poisonous legacy of Cold War hatred.
Pingback:The dead hand of the USSR – No Minister