From its inception, zionism has been a geopolitical construct. Today it presents the ‘Nazi holocaust’ against the jews in Europe as the historical explanation and the moral justification for the ‘zionist holocaust’ against the Palestinians.

If zionism were a genuine national-liberation movement, as is claimed by the zionists and their imperialist backers, it is pertinent to ask: why did it not seek to liberate the Jewish Pale of Settlement (home to most jews) in Russia?

Likewise the question arises as to why, when contemporary zionism claims to be exclusively jewish, are its origins traceable to non-jewish debates and writings of late nineteenth century England?

What claim can zionism make to Palestine that the Palestinians can’t make with much greater force? In the name of what can zionism justify the expulsion, dispossession, dispersal and oppression of millions of Palestinians on the basis of ancient, medieval and modern atrocities inflicted in Europe by some Europeans against their jewish populations?

What are the prospects of zionism in view of Israel’s rejection of the UN-backed Right of Return for the Palestinians while simultaneously justifying its own existence on the arbitrary law of ‘return’?

As things stand, the zionist state of Israel, through its occupation of territories it captured in the 1967 war, its continued colonisation and settlement building, has to all intents and purposes scuppered the two-state solution. That being the case, it will either have to impose its rule over the Palestinians through a system of brutal apartheid or grant them rights as equal citizens in a binational state.

Either way, it puts paid to the zionist dream of an exclusively jewish – not to say theocratic and racist – state. Of these two options, the zionists are likely to choose the former.

History provides sufficient proof that such a state of affairs cannot be maintained indefinitely. It must break down in the face of Palestinian resistance and the fatigue of neverending war between the oppressors and the oppressed.

Some people think that socialism can be strengthened by some material harm to people on the basis of a poor life. This is wrong. This is a petty-bourgeois idea of socialism. In fact, socialism can only win on the basis of high labor productivity, higher than under capitalism, on the basis of an abundance of products and all kinds of consumer goods, on the basis of a prosperous and cultured life for all members of society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.