We are very pleased to publish the following contributed article by Comrade Massimiliano Ay, General Secretary of the Communist Party (Switzerland), which makes an original analysis of the present state of the Palestinian struggle, and the role of various international actors in this regard, within the context of the multipolarity trend and on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.
He notes that, back in September 2024, he had written that, from a tactical viewpoint, Israel was apparently winning, but from a strategic one, it would lose, and this is now being reflected in a range of tactical adjustments on the part of various imperialist forces.
Against this background, he continues: “China (and its Communist Party) will probably tactically follow a different line from us Western communists (and perhaps also from Arab communists) who lack governmental responsibility. This potential difference in method must in no way be read as a capitulation or, worse, as a Chinese betrayal of the Palestinian cause, but rather as an intelligent political move complementary to our struggle! For although, as stated by the top Chinese representative at the UN, “the Palestinian question is at the heart of Middle Eastern issues” and is therefore not an insignificant element in the path of the New Silk Road, it is also true that the conflict between imperialism and multipolarism is fought on a global level and not only in Gaza: Ukraine, for example, is at this moment a war scenario potentially much more dangerous for the world than Gaza, and Moscow therefore has this priority. Beijing for its part must win the battle against Trump’s tariffs, otherwise the entire Chinese economic strategy would be weakened.”
In this way, Comrade Ay creatively utilises and applies the same dialectical approach advanced by Mao Zedong, for example in his speech to the November 1957 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, where he said that the compromises made by socialist countries in their relations with capitalist states should not necessarily be followed by others. “Each party and country must consider its own conditions.”
Ay adds: “It is therefore no surprise that last November 17th, both Beijing and Moscow abstained in the UN Security Council, thus allowing the (awful) Donald Trump plan to pass de facto. Comrade Fu Cong, China’s ambassador to the UN, while stressing that this resolution, put to a vote rather hastily, was ‘deficient in many aspects and deeply concerning’, especially because it does not establish that ‘Gaza belongs to the Palestinian people and to no one else’, explicitly reiterated that Beijing’s priority remains, at all costs, ‘a lasting ceasefire, alleviating the humanitarian disaster, and starting post-war reconstruction to rekindle the hope of peace and development for the population of Gaza’.
“China also had to take into account some other facts, which we, on the other hand, as opposition communist parties and Western solidarity movements, do not necessarily have a duty to observe. First, diplomacy requires negotiating with all governments actually in power, not only with those we like. Secondly, the Trump plan was approved even by the Palestinian National Authority (however discredited President Mahmoud Abbas may now be) and, albeit reluctantly, was accepted by almost all other Arab and Islamic countries, including two fundamental partners of Beijing (and Moscow), such as Turkey and Pakistan. In this context – as the British collective Friends of Socialist China rightly explains, if China had stood in the way of its own allies, exercising the right of veto, ‘it would only have weakened its position vis-à-vis the Arab and Muslim nations and, consequently, further strengthened that of the United States. […] Furthermore, a Chinese or Russian veto on this occasion would not have materially dissuaded the United States or Israel from proceeding with their plans, it would simply have removed even the most basic level of international supervision, limitation, and accountability’.”
The article was written in Italian and translated into English by the author.
Two Premises
The first premise is that China and Saudi Arabia have signed an enormous number of strategic agreements (ranging from the petrochemical sector to clean energies, including cloud computing and artificial intelligence). This is a diplomatic masterpiece by the Communist Party of China, which managed, if not to dismantle, at least to weaken a historic alliance, which in some ways appeared monolithic, between the reactionary Saudi monarchy and the United States. This, however, also means that Mohammed Bin Salman will have to count for more on the geopolitical level than he does today.
The second premise is a teaching of Marxism: as long as imperialism exists, there will be war! China’s objective is to avoid a third world war and therefore to attempt — by any means and at all costs — to dampen any outbreak of violence. China is indeed convinced that only through peaceful economic development can the match against Atlantic imperialism be won, thus opening the doors to a multipolar system, where a system of mutual cooperation among sovereign nations prevails. To achieve the “community with a shared future for mankind”, Beijing might be forced to accept compromises of all kinds, both to buy time and to avoid becoming involved in conflicts that would damage the New Silk Road, which remains the essential pivot of Beijing’s entire international policy.
A Sudden Shift in Narrative: Why Has It Now Become Acceptable to Criticize Israel?
In September 2024, I had written in an article that, from a tactical viewpoint, Israel was apparently winning, but from a strategic one, it would lose. The military and economic losses of the Zionist entity are in fact becoming unsustainable for a prolonged war effort, but in reality, social contradictions within the very same Israeli society are also boiling over. And this is true both on the right (settlers, resigning Mossad agents, hostages’ relatives, etc.) and on the left (youths refusing military service, Israeli army officers deserting for reasons of conscience, protests by communists and Arab movements, etc.), not to mention the record number of Israeli citizens who are leaving the country. Furthermore, in terms of image, the Tel Aviv regime is emerging with broken bones, despite having enjoyed for two years the indecent complicity of the mainstream media, the (treacherous) rectors of European universities, and Western governments – a complicity which, however, has suddenly broken in recent times. A shift – one that we have been able to observe – sudden and coordinated, that is, the exact opposite of spontaneous and sincere! That behind this at least suspicious change of pace there is not just an attempt by some radical chic to “clear their conscience” can be understood from the fact that hardened Zionists are now beginning to turn into critics of Israel. For anyone with political sense, it is obvious that there is a director, and it must obviously be sought at the international level.
That the ongoing genocide in Palestine was becoming a destabilizing factor could already be seen from some cracks: the Spanish government’s recognition of Palestine and its blocking of academic cooperation with Israel months ago was a first signal, but it is likely that others will begin to appear, and of ever greater significance. The EU’s High Representative Kaja Kallas, known for being both Zionist and an indefatigable warmonger, had for example declared her intention to revise the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and last September even the equally Zionist and warmongering Ursula von der Leyen hypothesized economic restrictions against Tel Aviv. We should therefore not be surprised if even the ultra-Zionist Donald Trump makes unexpected moves to resurrect the fraudulent principle of “two peoples two states,” and let us not be amazed when mainstream television stations leak some truth about Zionist crimes: it will all be functional to finally bring down Benjamin Netanyahu (by now indefensible and embarrassing) and replace him with a “good” Zionist whom the media are already diligently seeking: good if he is a Labourite, even better if she is a woman, but likely, in the absence of such a figure, they might take some past criminal out of mothballs and repaint him as a …moderate. During the summer, they started betting on Ehud Olmert: after all, the 2008 “Cast Lead” operation is no longer remembered by any journalist. Now, however, it seems the choice is shifting to another name. The substitute for the genocidal Netanyahu will have to, as per the script, spout a bit about peace and human rights, and play the part of the dialoguing Zionist who apparently respects the role of the UN.
This is why Europeanist social democracy (including the opportunistic one operating in Switzerland), which was first silent and then ambiguous, has now suddenly started promoting torchlight vigils and silent marches (when one should instead be shouting!) and even a popular initiative to recognize the State of Palestine: their watchword is now to make public opinion believe that the evil is not Zionism, but only Netanyahu (and his extremist line): in this way they will be able to do two things: save the Israeli regime from implosion and hinder the Palestinian partisan movements by reviving that part of the liberal and pro-Western Arab civil society which is now discredited. Our Marxist watchword, on the other hand, must continue to be the opposite: Zionism is a neo-colonial project and as long as it exists, it will lead exclusively to massacres and wars.
If China Buys Time, We Must Press On
China (and its Communist Party) will probably tactically follow a different line from us Western communists (and perhaps also from Arab communists) who lack governmental responsibility. This potential difference in method must in no way be read as a capitulation or, worse, as a Chinese betrayal of the Palestinian cause, but rather as an intelligent political move complementary to our struggle! For although, as stated by the top Chinese representative at the UN, “the Palestinian question is at the heart of Middle Eastern issues” and is therefore not an insignificant element in the path of the New Silk Road, it is also true that the conflict between imperialism and multipolarism is fought on a global level and not only in Gaza: Ukraine, for example, is at this moment a war scenario potentially much more dangerous for the world than Gaza, and Moscow therefore has this priority. Beijing for its part must win the battle against Trump’s tariffs, otherwise the entire Chinese economic strategy would be weakened. The Communist Party of China, in short, pragmatically teaches us that, however painful, the world is bigger than Palestine alone!
In order to stop the genocide (which from a Marxist reading represents the primary contradiction of the moment) and, precisely, in order to try to dampen the war outbreak in the Middle East for at least a few years (which could involve Chinese partners like Iran and Turkey, but also Southern Cyprus, before exploding across Asia), Beijing will try every avenue, even unconventional and even if it means entering into odious temporary pacts with imperialism.
It is therefore no surprise that last November 17th, both Beijing and Moscow abstained in the UN Security Council, thus allowing the (awful) Donald Trump plan to pass de facto. Comrade Fu Cong, China’s ambassador to the UN, while stressing that this resolution, put to a vote rather hastily, was “deficient in many aspects and deeply concerning”, especially because it does not establish that “Gaza belongs to the Palestinian people and to no one else”, explicitly reiterated that Beijing’s priority remains, at all costs, “a lasting ceasefire, alleviating the humanitarian disaster, and starting post-war reconstruction to rekindle the hope of peace and development for the population of Gaza”.
China also had to take into account some other facts, which we, on the other hand, as opposition communist parties and Western solidarity movements, do not necessarily have a duty to observe. First, diplomacy requires negotiating with all governments actually in power, not only with those we like. Secondly, the Trump plan was approved even by the Palestinian National Authority (however discredited President Mahmoud Abbas may now be) and, albeit reluctantly, was accepted by almost all other Arab and Islamic countries, including two fundamental partners of Beijing (and Moscow), such as Turkey and Pakistan. In this context – as the British collective “Friends of Socialist China” rightly explains, if China had stood in the way of its own allies, exercising the right of veto, “it would only have weakened its position vis-à-vis the Arab and Muslim nations and, consequently, further strengthened that of the United States. […] Furthermore, a Chinese or Russian veto on this occasion would not have materially dissuaded the United States or Israel from proceeding with their plans, it would simply have removed even the most basic level of international supervision, limitation, and accountability”.
We should not be surprised either if one day an agreement emerges that openly involves Beijing, Moscow, Washington, and Riyadh, so that Israel is preserved (unfortunately, thus not touching its odious racist regime) but contained territorially and, at the same time, a State of Palestine is created (internationally recognized, even by Trump, but also reduced territorially compared to what Hamas hopes for and politically non-secular), whose independence would however be temporarily unfinished as it is contracted out, for example, to Saudi Arabia (which, unlike Iran, would have the money to rebuild it). A scenario that is “understandable” from an immediate humanitarian viewpoint because it would at least stop the genocide; negative if we read it in political and ideological terms.
In this case, communists and Palestine solidarity movements should therefore seize the “pause” that might occur in the ethnic cleansing that the Israeli regime nevertheless harbors and will always harbor within itself, and continue to intensify the anti-Zionist struggle until the next stage, that is, the definitive national liberation of Palestine.
The Priority is to Defuse Zionist Fury and Uncover its Infiltrators in Switzerland
As Moni Ovadia said, the “two peoples two states” solution has always been nothing but a fraud with which imperialism managed to deceive the Palestinian people. This is therefore not the objective of communists: on the contrary, we fight for the liberation of Palestine “from the river to the sea” and we do not recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist Entity invented by imperialism in 1948 and tolerated for a few years even by the Soviets. We know, however, that not only is a hateful genocide underway that must be stopped immediately, but also that the fanatical regime in power in Tel Aviv is now out of control and could therefore extend the war, as it has already attempted by bombing Lebanon and Iran. Defusing the Zionist fury is therefore the first objective and it seems that China is oriented to work in this direction.
This is why the new stage of this terrible struggle for us, Swiss communists, will be eminently “national”. This was clearly explained to us by the students who took to the streets in Bellinzona last November 17th, led by the Independent Union of Students and Apprentices (SISA) and the Swiss Communist Youth: the opening banner did not read a generic “Students and Apprentices for Palestine” but a very clear, sharp, and combative “Anti-Zionist Students and Apprentices.” These young women and men, barely more than adolescents, have taught us a great deal: the priority now is indeed to be anti-Zionist as one was anti-fascist in the past. Zionism (which according to the historian Luciano Canfora is today’s Nazism) is the currently most violent, aggressive, irrational, and racist form of Atlanticism: we must refuse, denounce, and eradicate the Zionist danger in our country! The most revolutionary task for us here, to truly help the partisan struggle in Palestine, is to unmask the Zionists who have infiltrated the Swiss Army, the public Radio-Television service, the universities, research centers, high schools, companies, and even parties (including left-wing ones). Zionists are the main brake not only on any socialist hypothesis, but above all they are a very strong obstacle to a Switzerland that is independent and neutral towards NATO and the EU.
