ARAB PALESTINIAN

MONTHLY MAGAZINE

VOLUME HI - No. 11 NOVEMBER 1971

111971

PALESTINE LIBERATION ARMY , PEOPLE'S LIBEBATION FORCES

Arab PalestinianR E SI S T A CEVolume III - No. 11 November 1971

C O N T B N T S

• From the Record 3

• Editorial 4

• Political Scene by: M. T. Bujairami 8

• November Z, 1917 16

• Four Poems by: Tewflk Ziad 22

• The Wedding: Invitation by: Hafcam Bala'awi 28

• Palestine Question in World Press 32

• Questions and Answers 38

• A Voice of Protest by: Herbert Waddams 45

• The Palestine Partition Resolution

by: Yousef Khatib 56

• A.B.C. of the Palestine Question 64

• Review of Events

• Book Review

• Resistance Operations 81

• Building in Jerusalem

by: Arnold Toynbee and Geoffrey Furlonge 84

• Documents Declaration of the Rabat Islamic

Summit Conference 90

65

73

1i

ixxiiS

C o r r e s p o n d e n c e

The E d i t o r ,

R e s i s t a n c e ,

P . 0 . B . 3 5 7 7D a m a s c u s , S y r i a .

: /',| ;•(. '>Y.t> '

t^&Ki^Z ' 'i I • * ;

Pr ice p e r c o p y

S y r i a n p i a s t e r s l O O

E d i t o r :

liiJfi

«The Jews have erred grievously in seeking toimpose themselves in Palestine with the aid ofBritain and now with the aid of naked terrorism.))

Mahatma Gandhi, 1946

«I was much pro-Jewish when I got to Pales-tine. But later I obtained a true picture of thesituation.»

«A place other than Palestine should have beenfound for the Jews,»

General Vagn Bennike, ChiefU.N. Observer in Palestine,

6 November, 1954.

. . , . , ,

DITORIAL

The admission of the People's Republic of Chinato membership of the United Nations, to replace theGovernment of Taiwan in occupying China's seat inthe world organization, is probably the most impor-tant event in the history of the United Nations sinceits establishment in 1945.

The Palestine resistance movement welcomesthe long overdue admission of the true representa-tives of the Chinese people to China's seat in theworld organization. The People's Republic of China

4

••

has always been a sincere supporter and unwaveringfriend of the just cause of the Arab people of Pales-tine. As early as March 1965, a delegation of thethen newly-formed Palestine Liberation Organiza-tion visited Peking by invitation and had talks withrepresentatives of the Chinese People's Institute ofForeign Affairs.

At the end of the visit, a joint statement wasissued which announced China's recognition of «the

struggle of the Arabs of Palestine and other Arabpeoples against Isiael, the tool of U.S. imperialism,as constituting an integral part of the great struggleof the Asian and African peoples against worldimperialism, with the United States at its head».

Last May, the authoritative «Renmin Ribao»published an editorial on the occasion of «the Pales-tine International Week» in which the paper hailedthe struggle of the Palestinian people and declaredthat «the struggle of the Palestinians and otherArab peoples against the U.S.-Israeli aggressors is ajust one». The paper added: «The Chinese peopleside with them and resolutely support their causes.

More recently, in November 1971, the occasionof the world table tennis contests held in Peking, inwhich a number of Arab teams participated, wasseized by the Chinese people to reaffirm their sup-

port for the Arab liberation struggle and theircondemnation of Israel's continuing aggressionagainst the Arab people.

China and the Arab countries represent twoflanks of the anti-imperialist struggle in Afro-Asia.China has succeeded in ousting an imperialistEast-Asian stooge from U.N. membership; and it isto be hoped that Israel, the chief imperialist protegein West Asia, will soon have the same fate.

The admission of the legitimate representativesof the Chinese people to China's seat in the UnitedNations is doubly significant to the Palestinianresistance movement. It proves once more that apeople's struggle is sure to be ultimately vindicatedand provides the Palestinian cause with powerfulsupport in the U.N. Security Council. •

i<

V..

by: M. T. Bujairami

More than ever before, it has become crystalclear that America and Israel are working out anintricate, subtle plan not only to gain time on aprovisional basis, but also to freeze the present«status quo» in the Middle East for an unlimited

period of time.

America and Israel hope that while designingtheir well-knit scheme in close collaboration, if notdeliberate collusion, the whole crisis will relapseonce more into gradual oblivion, retreating into thebackground of world interest as one of the incurableailments that the international community will haveto get used to, or to put up with, for a long time to

come.

The first step in the implementation of thispolicy was the series of treacherous campaigns ofextermination launched against the Palestinianpeople in Jordan. Similar campaigns, though on aperhaps smaller scale, may soon be carried out inLebanon, for example, in the hope of eliminatingwhat America and Israel consider as the «explosiveelement)) in the situation as a whole.

The second stage, which is being attemptednow, is to break up the big crisis into separate prob-lems that should be ((approached and treated))separately, one by one, under the pretext that thismight be the only way to «ease tension* or to ((createa better atmosphere)) for a potential settlement.

Thus America and Israel hope to divert theattention of the world from the big, inflammableissue of the continued Israeli occupation of vastArab territories into several subsequent and secon-dary issues such as: the reopening of the Suez Canal,the «peace guarantees*, the «secure borderss, the«problem of the refugees)), the ((question of Jeru-salem)), the «status of the other occupied territories)),and so on.

Even so, not in one of these subsidiary questionshas Israel shown any sign of leniency, and it is notlikely to show any such sign. On the contrary, Israelpretends to consider the Arabs as the invadingaggressors who should be called upon to make more

concessions.

The Israeli behaviour in all the occupied Arabterritories continues to indicate that these areas arenot regarded by Israel to be even negotiable. WhatIsrael would be ready to negotiate, however, is theArabs' willingness to sign an official recognition ofthe «status quo», or something almost exactlysimilar to the present situation, thus turning thecease-fire lines into permanent demarcation lines.

In order to achieve this, America and Israelseem to work patiently on several lines at the sametime. First: They try to give the world a deceptiveimpression that the most urgent Middle East pro-blem at present is the reopening of the Suez Canal.

Their misleading argument in this respectseems to run like this: Things are straighteningthemselves out in the Middle East. After Jordan's«pacincation» campaigns against the militant Pales-tinians, the second danger spot to be tackled nowis the Suez Canal. Thus they try to pin the crux ofthe whole matter to this issue. Meantime, they tryto suggest that Egypt is the party to be blamed forthe present critical Middle East situation becausePresident Sadat has given the end of this year as adeadline. Moreover, to complete the false picture ofthe situation, the American top diplomats and high-ranking officials are never tired of declaring an«Qptimism» based on an alleged progress in theircontacts with the parties concerned.

The second line pursued by Washington in this

10

respect is to offer guarantees — generous, unilateralguarantees-to Israel, including the stepping up ofU.S. military and economic aid, in spite of the factthat Israel is not in need of such aid, unless givingaid to Israel is the American idea of bringing pres-sure to bear on Israeli intransigence.

This point deserves elaboration. The American

11

offers of assistance and guarantees to Israel werepublicly voiced by Rogers in his address to thecurrent session of the United Nations GeneralAssembly. Shortly thereafter, another sample ofAmerica's plan or «initiatives» has been offeredconcerning the opening of the Canal, as if thisopening were the final aim with which the Arabsshould be content.

Meanwhile, reports have been published in anumber of Western papers to the effect that Israelhas already developed a secret missile named«Jericho». designed to carry nuclear warheads.These reports have also talked of America's«concern» over this introduction of tactical nuclearweapons into the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The circulated reports have even given aprecise description of the Israeli missile, which hasthe capacity of being charged «with a conventionalhigh-explosive payload and a range of 300 miles».The reports have added that Israel could produce anaverage of 3-6 such missiles per month. Israeli sour-ces have been quoted to have claimed that themissile would serve as an effective deterrent againstany attempt to wipe out the Israelis. (Incidentally,nobody seems to be concerned with any deterrentagainst wiping out the PALESTINIANS!). Further-more, an Israeli spokesman is reported to haveboastfully declared that ((military research in Israelis on a level with any other power below the U.S.and the USSR».

12

Such reports may very well have been jointlyconcocted, and deliberately sleaked out» to the pressby Israeli intelligence and the CIA to coincide withthe approaching end of the year 1971 set as a dead-line by President Sadat. They would then obviouslyrepresent a joint U.S.-Israeli plan intended tointimidate the Arabs through this form of psycholo-gical warfare. On the other hand, if we grant thevalidity of these «reports», what need would Israelhave for more American weapons?

To answer this question, the Israeli propagandamachine has a ready formula: ((American weaponsare needed to counter-balance the flow of Sovietmilitary assistance to Egypt» as Dayan or Barlevwould say. In fact, a campaign of this sort wasdrummed up during President Sadat's recent visitto Moscow, when Israeli sources claimed that eventheir Phantoms could not confront the Soviet-madeMIG 23 jets, two of which had been reported to haveapproached the Mediterranean coast of Palestine.

This reveals the two poles of the vicious circleof Israeli propaganda. On the one hand, Israel talksboastfully of its superiority, invincibility and in-vulnerability; and on the other hand it runs, panic-stricken, to the United States asking for moreweapons!

The American attitude is parallel to, if notidentical with, the Israeli plans. While offeringIsrael a «carte blanche» to get whatever she likesfrom the American arsenal, Uncle Sam tries, overtly

13

and covertly, to press the. Arabs through ((initiatives)),projects and verbal promises to be «more patient»,to «exercise self-restraint)), and to «refrain fromsetting dates, ultimatums or dead-lines)) lest theyshould, by so doing, «spoil the good offices and quietdiplomacy)) of Washington.

Also Washington finds it necessary, every nowand then, to express «optimism» over the progresswhich is being made toward a Middle East settle-ment — «progress» the result of which nobody cansee, a «progress» designed to lull the vigilance ofthe Arab Nation while Israel remains as arrogantas ever.

Meanwhile, the Israeli annexation of the occu-pied Arab territories continues at full speed. Butthis as well as the Judaization of Jerusalem andHebron, the radical geographic, cultural and ethnicchanges of the Arab character and the legal statusof the occupied territories, the economic assimilationof the Western Bank of Jordan, the construction ofmore- military and semi-military colonies in theoccupied Golan Heights, the plundering of the oil

14

and mineral resources of Sinai, the evacuation ofthe Arab citizens from Gaza by force, the continuousnightmarish plight of the Arab civilian citizens inthe occupied lands, whose youth are subjected toinhuman torture in neo-Nazi concentration camps atthe hands of the Israeli forces — these are matterswhich both America and Israel seem to ignore andto prefer to be silent about, because, to them, thesematters have no urgent importance!

The United States and Israel persist in rejectingall international condemnation of Israeli oppressivepractises in the occupied Arab territories and inbarring international commissions from investiga-ting any such matters. The Zionists seem to preferto raise such issues as alleged anti-Semitism in theSoviet Union, as they did during Mr. Kosygin'srecent visit to Canada without in the meantimebothering to look into their own backyard!

Today, the question which looms over theMiddle East is: Just for how long do both. Americaand Israel think they can tax the patience of theArab Nation without exposing .this part of the worldto a devastating global conflagration? •

15

1917

The 2nd of November is associated in the mindsof the Palestinians and of the Arab people generallywith the Balfoiir Declaration, which was issued in1917. This Declaration which promised the Jews a«riational hoine» in Palestine is at the root of theArab-Zionist conflict.

Writing on the Balfour Declaration, Palestinianauthor Burhan Dajani has said:

«This Declaration embodied in its text all thegerms of the Palestine tragedy. Like the words ofthe three witches in Macbeth, its words containedby organic implication all later events and caughtthem in a sinister web of doom... The continuousArab objection to the falsehood of the whole trans-action has been on one occasion summed up in thefamous dictum contained in President Nasser'sletter to President Kennedy: a State without a title,Britain, gave a country which it does not own,

17

Palestine, to those who have no right to it, the

Zionist Jews.The operative part of the Balfour Declaration

may be divided into three parts:

The first, applicable to the Jews, which providedthat «His Majesty's Government view with favourthe establishment in Palestine of a national homefor the Jewish people and will use their best endea-vours to facilitate the achievement of this objects.

The second part, referring to the position ofJews outside Palestine, which stated: «The rightsand political status enjoyed by Jews in any othercountry shall not be prejudiced by the establishmentof a national home for the Jewish peoples. Thisprotective clause of the Declaration gave the ZionistJews the homeland of another people while safe-guarding the rights of Jews in their countries of

origin.The third part, relating to the rights and

position of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants ofPalestine, who constituted 92% of the population,stipulated that «nothing shall be done which mayprejudice the civil and religious rights of existingnon-Jewish communities in Palestine)).

In the third part of the Balfour Declarationwhich is comprised of the protective clause relatingto the rights of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine,these inhabitants are mentioned in such a way asto give an entirely false picture of their position in

18

the country. Although constituting, in 1917, morethan 92% of the population, they are referred to as«the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine)).

This deceptive designation is intended to givethe erroneous impression that these so-called non-Jewish communities represented an insignificantpart of the population of the country.

In fact the entire Declaration was based onfraud, deception, and the betrayal of trusting allies.One year earlier, in 1916, Britain, represented bythe British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir HenryMacMahon, had promised Sharif Hussein of Meccaand the Arab people, including the people of Pales-tine, complete independence, in return for an Arabrevolt against the Ottoman Turks and the participa-tion of the Arabs in the Allied war effort in theMiddle East.

In 1917, when the Balfour Declaration waswidely publicized by the Ottoman military leadersin the Arab East as a sign of British betrayal ofpledges to the Arabs, Sharif Hussein asked theBritish government for an explanation. Assuranceswere given that the Allies intended to honour theirpledges to the Arabs; and although these assuranceswere not convincing, the Arabs continued to fight onthe side of the Allies.

The assurances given in this connection atvarious times included the following:

1. The Hogarth message of January 1918assured the Arabs that «Jewish settlement in Pales-tine would only be allowed inasfar as would be

19

consistent with the political and economic freedomof the Arab populations.

2. The Basset letter of February 8, 1918, inwhich'the British Government solemnly repeated«its previous promise in respect of the freedom andemancipation of the Arab peoples)).

3. The Declaration to the Seven of February8 1918 in which the Allied authorities assuredrepresentatives of the Arab revolution that thefuture government of the Arab territories liberatedfrom Turkish rule, including Palestine, «should bebased upon the principle of the consent of thegoverned)).

4. The joint Anglo-French Proclamation ofNovember 9, 1918, in which it was announced that«France and Great Britain had agreed to encourageand to assist the establishment of native govern-ments in Syria — of which Palestine forms thesouthern part — and in Mesopotamia)).

What, it may be asked, prompted the BritishGovernment, to issue the Balfour Declaration?Lloyd George, British Prime Minister at the time,gives the following explanation: «The Zionistleaders gave us a definite promise that if the Alliescommitted themselves to giving facilities for theestablishment of a national home for the Jews inPalestine, they would do their best to rally Jewishsupport throughout the world to the Allied cause».

The Zionists, however, later invented a strange

20

public relations story to the effect that the BritishGovernment promised the Jews a national home inPalestine because Professor Chaim Weizmann hadcontributed to the Allied victory in World War I byinventing synthetic acetone and the T.N.T. explosiveand thereby changing the course of the war.

For over fifty years, the story has been cir-culated by Zionist propagandists. But let us see whatWeizmann himself says about this fable in hisautobiography «Trial and Errors in which hedeclares: «For some unfathomable reason, theyalways billed me as the inventor of T.N.T. It was invain that I systematically and repeatedly denied anyconnection with, or interest in, T.N.T. No discourage-ment could put them off».

Such is the Zionist manner of deception. Theirclaim to Palestine is as false as ascribing the inven-tion of T.N.T. to their leader Chaim Weizmann. m

21

MI 1 :|

TEWF1K ZIAD

4Tewflk Ziad is an Arab poet from the Israeli-occupied

Arab town of Nazareth. He is the oldest among the poets oiresistance in the Galilee district in North Palestine. Bornin 1932 in Nazareth, where he completed his high school, helater went to Moscow to study Russian literature.

The four poems of defiance presented below expressthe determination of the Arabs of the occupied territoriesto resist Zionist oppression to the end and to continue thestruggle for liberation, notwithstanding the ruthlessness

and brutality of the occupiers.

Needed is a book to attest,But since I am marked every minute for arrest,I shall make my entries on an olive tree

22

That alone in the courtyard is left free.My secrets...The number of every piece of land taken,The very spot where my village lies,Its borders, houses, blown or standing.Onto this same tree I shall also engraveThe trees uprooted, the flowers crushed,The prisons, name and location, and makeSpecial entries of every hand-cuff of every makeIn bolder letters, I shall engrave:«Kafr Kassem, Deir Yassin, I shall never forget».I shall make my entries on a treeThat alone in the courtyard stands free.

THE IMPOSSIBLEIt is much easier for youTo pass an elephant through a needle's eye,Or catch fried fish in galaxy,Plough the sea,Force a crocodile to speakThan to destroy by persecutionThe shimmering glow of a belief,Or check our march,One single step.

As if we were a thousand prodigiesSpreading everywhereIn Lydda, in Ramlah, in the Galilee...

23

Here we shall stay,A wall upon your breastAnd in your throat we shall stay,A piece of glass, a cactus thorn,And in your eyes,A blazing fire.

Here we shall stay,A wall upon your breast,Cleaning dishes in taverns,Filling cups for the masters,Sweeping sooty kitchens,To snatch a bite from your blue fangsFor our children.Here we shall stay,A Avail upon your breast,Facing starvation,Struggling with rags, defying,Singing our songs,Swarming the angry streets with our demonstrations.Filling the dungeons with pride,Rearing vengeance in new generations,Like a thousand prodigies,We roam alongIn Lydda, in Ramlah, in the Galilee.

Here we shall stay,Go then and jump into the lake.We will guard even the shadow of our fig and

olive trees,And ferment our cause as yeast does dough.

'24

Here we shall stay with steel-cold nerves^nd red hell in our hearts..We squeeze the rock to quench our thirstAjid lull starvation with dust.But we shall not depart.Tjere we shall spill our dearest blood,Here we have a past,A present,A future.Stay we will, like a thousand prodigies,In Lydda, in Ramlah, in the Galilee,Strike deep in the earthOur living roots.

As yesterday we did not float upon a handfulof water,

Today, we shall not drown in a handful of water.They took this, route to the east, black cloudsKilling children, roses, crops and dew-drops.Generating hate, envy, tombs, and death.And this route they will take on the way back,No matter how long they stay.Do not say, «we have triumphed))!This victory is worse than defeat.We should not regard the surface,But the depth of their crime.No! By the name of light,We shall not lose a grain of this free soil.

25

i f ' "

We shall not bow to iron and fire,This is only a fall, and the brave often fall.It was a step backward,But will be turned into ten forward, soon.

||

liEfPAGAN FIRESlowly,I draw the thin thread of lightFrom the night's entangled darkness,Water the nursery of dreamsAt the source of the torrent,And dry the tears of my belovedWith kerchiefs of Arabian Jasmine.

26

Slowly,I plant the scarce oasesIn the burning sands,And build for scoundrelsA life of justice and scented plentitude.If one day, I trip on the road

roots will guide me back.

Slowly,For I am not like matchesThat flicker once and die forever,But like a pagan fire,I burn from the cradle to the grave,And from my ancestors to my descendents.My bread is as wide as the horizon;I will master the craft of the ants.

Slowly,For we dictateThe course of history.We have seen the endOf many a Tyrant;Each gets what he deserves.We lengthen their ropes,Not to lengthen their lives, but to hang them.

27

T,he Wedding Invitation

by: Hakam Bala'awi

Sow a Palestinian exile put an end to themental and physical disturbance he was sufferingfrom by joining the ranks of the resistance fighters.

When he bought the car he thought that itwould enable him to break a strong fence which hehad built around himself. He wanted to run awayfrom the limited environment in which he had spenta long and fruitless life. He had tried to escape byreading the many books on the shelves of his libraryor by putting down on paper what he thought wouldgive him some kind of relief. But this only gavehim a feeling of disgust at what the other people orhe had written. It was all meaningless.

28

The car, he thought, would help him go awayto the many places which would make him forgethis past and its painful memories. But this did nothappen. He went to many places, and always hecame back to his little house where he had hung themaps and pictures of the lost land. And everytimehe came back he spent hours gazing at these picturesand maps which reminded him of his innocentchildhood. Little by little he realized that he wastrying to escape from the memories of his defeat,from the yearning to go back and. the inability to doso, that he was actually trying to escape from

himself.He tried to indulge in various kinds of hobbies;

he watched football games in an attempt to drownhimself in the crowds and be one of them. But herealized many times that while everyone else waswatching the game he was looking at the facesaround him looking for something. And after everygame he went out not with the mental relief and

28

the pleasure one usually gets from such entertain-ment, but with fatigue and frustration. Perhaps itwas because he was never able to find what he waslooking for, or perhaps because he realized that hewas different and that while the others were ableto forget the past he was not.

Often he woke up from his thoughts only tofind out that he was sweating and panting like atired dog. And this was always accompanied by thefeeling that he was running after something whichhe could faintly distinguish in the distant horizon.But every time he got close enough to that thing, iteluded him and disappeared as though it was neverthere. The doctors told him that there was nothingwrong with him physically, but that he was emotio-nally disturbed. They said that there was somethingin his past he would never forget. It was like beingin love with some unattainable person. And yet hedid not think that what he longed for wasunattainable.

He had a wife and two lovely children. Theywere his consolation in this life which seemed emptyand meaningless. His wife often noticed that he wasdisturbed about something. But she did not try todiscuss it with him directly, fearing that it mayoffend him. She tried to occupy most of his time byasking him to take her out to the movies, or to visitsome friends. Sometimes when they discussedserious matters, she noticed that he did not havemuch hope in the future. He always said that if they

anted to live they had to remember the past andy to redeem it. With these thoughts he alwaysointed to the maps and pictures of the occupied

land- There he always rested his hopes.One day she noticed that he was very depressed.

He stayed in his room by himself and did not wishto see anyone. She wanted to do something to helphim get out of his self-imposed prison. She washappy when they received in the mail an invitationto a friend's wedding. She went to him and announ-ced that they had to get ready for the weddingwhich took place that evening. He was quiet. Hethought of the wedding he attended back homewhen he was a child. And somehow he could notbring himself to believe that weddings had anymeaning now. How could people celebrate? Howcould they hope for a better future away from theirhomes and farms and trees? There was only onehope. The men who went in day and night to theoccupied land and disturbed the quiet of the placewith their bullets and fire. These were the weddingsthat he wanted to attend. These were the onlylegitimate celebrations for them until they regainedthe land.

He took the invitation card from his wife, andalmost unconsciously wrote on it: «Sorry, we can'tbe there. We are moving closer to the banks of theRiver.» •

31

I " "

AtESTINE QUESTIONIN

WORLD PRESS

Our world press extracts for this month are takenfrom: (1) a Herald Tribune editorial (October 5, 1971)entitled «Roael to Middle East Peace», in which Eban'sproposals for a Middle East settlement are described asK3.ii excursion into familiar byways... All have been triedbefore; all have failed». (2) a commentary published in theMoscow «New Times» October issue (No. 40), entitled«lsraeli Oatrag-es». (3) An editorial of the British paper«The Guardian» (October 8, 1971) which strongly condemnsIsrael's defiance of the United Nations over Jerusalem.

'•" ' Road to Middle East Peace: (Herald Tribune -October 5, 1971)The tour guide to a Middle East Peace settle-

ment which Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban

32

!

apped out for the United Nations . GeneralAssembly last week was an excursion into familiarbyways. When the stalled peace talks are despera-tely in need of new directions, Mr Eban charted five«roads to peace». All have been tried before; allhave failed so far to bring any measurable progresstoward Mideast stability.

Among the possibilities, the foreign ministerrevived an old Israeli proposal for a separate con-ference on the «problem of refugees». This is adetour leading nowhere as long as practically everycountry involved insists on treating the Palestiniansmerely as refugees and not as a nation stillborn,now clearly clamoring for life.

Mr. Eban also offered a side trip into some ofthe less controversial areas of an Arab-Israeli treaty.This might have been a useful excursion three orfour years ago, but the time is surely long overduefor both sides to concentrate on the major diffe-rences that pose a growing threat of renewedwarfare.

Israeli Outrages: (New Times - October, 1971 -No. 40)

The U.N. Security Council discussion of theIsraeli authorities' unlawful activities in the Arabsection of Jerusalem has again focussed attention onthe situation in the occupied territories. The Israelis

are demolishing Arab dwellings, building blocks ofnew houses and settling their own people there inan operation that may be called Judaization of theArab part of the Holy City.

A similar policy is being followed in the terri-tories of Egypt, Syria and Jordan occupied in 1967.Eighteen militarized settlements have already beenset up on the Golan Heights in Syria, and others aregoing up on the west bank of the Jordan and inSinai. Military installations and strategic highwaysare being built everywhere.

It is these military preparations that are res-ponsible for the recent tragedy in the Gaza Strip. InAugust and September, having first carried out((collective repressions)) and mass arrests of «sus-pects,» a large number of whom were killed, theIsraeli authorities set out to demolish whole blocksof houses and Palestine refugee camps. The Arabsare being driven to the northern part of Sinai.According to Reuter, the Israelis have decided toexpel 30,000 of the 40,000 refugees accommodated inthe Djeballia camp. The general strike in Gaza inAugust was declared in reply to this step.

The terror in Gaza is fresh proof of theaggressiveness of Israel's policy. The establishmentof a strategic base in this area is not the only aim.The Israelis also hope to intimidate the Arabs intogiving up their just liberation struggle.

34

In May of this year the association of graduatesf the Arab-American University in Chicago

published an open letter to Leftist Jewish organi-zations in the United States. The author was a pro-minent Israeli progressive who used the pseudonymAmitai Ben-Ena because he feared reprisals. Theletter gave a detailed description of Israel's widelypractised policy of driving the Arabs from theirland and demolishing whole blocks of their houses,and cited numerous instances of massacres of Arabcivilians. Quoting witnesses and victims of Israeliterror, Amitai Ben-Ena wrote that thousands ofArabs were locked up in concentration camps andprisons in occupied territories.

There is a little town called Sharm al Sheikhin the southern part of the Sinai Peninsula. TheIsraeli leaders refuse even to contemplate withdra-wing from this town which they consider an impor-tant strategic point. A Paris Le Monde correspon-dent who visited Sharm al Sheikh last spring wrotethat the Israeli occupation forces were engaged infeverish activity there. They have built an aero-drome capable of servicing large planes and a 240-kilometre-long asphalted road linking the town withthe Israeli port of Eilat. «We are using solid buildingmaterials because we intend to remain here forever,» an Israeli settler told him.

One hears similar things from the mouths ofIsraeli leaders too. «We must regard ourselves as apermanent administration in the occupied territo-

ries,» Defence Minister Moshe Dayan was reportedas saying. «We must persuade the Arabs living inthe occupied territories to agree to our presenceeven if they are not enthusiastic about it.»

Such provocative statements and the outragesthat accompany them merely aggravate the pro-tracted Middle East crisis.

Jerusalem: A City above States (The Guardian- October 8, 1971)

Israel is defying the United Nations again overJerusalem. It harms its own long-term interests inthe process. Since the occupation of the eastern halfof the city with the rest of Jordanian territory onthe West Bank during the war of June, 1967, theSecurity Council has three times passed resolutionscalling on Israel not to alter the City's status. Israelannexed Jerusalem according to its own laws justafter the war and has obdurately rejected eachresolution. In the most recent one, it stands accusedof the ((expropriation of land and properties, trans-fer of population, and legislation aimed at theincorporation of the occupied sections. In persistingwith its policies, Israel is erecting between itselfand an overall settlement in the Middle East, anunpleasant wall as that which divided the city fornineteen years.

The Security Council resolutions may be with-out decisive power, but they do have significance.

36

They are n°t to be lumped with some in the GeneralAssembly which Israel feels could vote a flat earthon to the statutes — given the preponderance ofArab, African and Third World Votes, The last tworesolutions on Jerusalem have notably included theUnited States, which abstained the first time. In1969 the Security Council voted unanimously. Thisamounts to considerably more than blind sidetaking.It emphasizes the feeling that Jerusalem is of suchreligious and emotional importance to Jews, Chris-tians and Moslems alike that it must not become thesole property of any one state.

This is the hardest point for Israel to accept.It is generally agreed that Israel's schemes forbuilding blocks of flats — apart from cruciallyaltering the population balance and annexing Jor-danian territory outside the area of the city —threaten to make a beautiful city ugly.

Israel is probably correct when it says that thecity is operating as a more efficient prosperous unitfor all inhabitants and that access is free to worshipby all religions. But these material points are notthe whole issue. It will be harder for the Arabs andIsrael to reach an agreement, over Jerusalem, thanover Sinai, the Suez Canal, the West Bank, theGolan Heights and even the Palestinians. Israeliactions are making this problem more intractable.

37

Q tiestions

And

Answers

A Colonial-Pattern Entity

This section of «Resistance» is devoted to Questionsand Answers designed to throw light on the Palestinequestion and the struggle of the Palestinian people toliberate their homeland.

As the following question and answer will show, theeconomic policy followed by the Israeli authorities in theoccupied Arab territories prove beyond doubt that Israelis a colonial-pattern entity and that the chief aim of thispolicy is the implementation of a process of colonizationand dehumanization.

'

WHAT SPECIAL AIM IS THE POLICY APPLIEDBY ISRAEL IN THE OCCUPIED ARABTERRITORIES INTENDED TO SERVE?

What is going on in Israel with regard to theArabs living in Zionist-occupied Palestine is not onlyracial discrimination and the preference of a Jew to

38

a Moslem or a Christian Arab. It is much worsethan that. It is a carefully-planned process of coloni-zation and dehumanization.

This process of colonization and dehumanizationoperates in all fields, not least of all in the economicfield. The economy of the Arab areas in Zionist-occupied Palestine is subjected to a special colonialpattern in which its role is to serve the needs ofIsraeli industry. Thus the agriculture of the WestBank has been reoriented since the beginning ofIsraeli occupation in 1967.

Before 1967. the West Bank was partly self-supporting and partly an exporter of vegetables andfruit. Now, its agriculture has been reoriented tomake it a producer of basic raw materials for theIsraeli industry. In the words of the official «fiveyear plans of the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture:«A11 capital and skill-intensive production will besituated in Israel, and all the manual-labour richproduction will be situated in the West Bank».

39

The Israeli Ministry of Agriculture boasts thatthe result of this plan will be the complete depen-dence of the West Bank on Israeli economy. Seedsfor Arab cultivation are supplied exclusively by theIsraeli Ministry of Agriculture and this determinesthe type of cultivation imposed. Also Arab producers,as in the whole of Zionist-occupied Palestine, haveto sell their produce to a monopolistic combinationof Zionist industry exclusively.

This simply repeats in the West Bank the policyimposed on the Arab areas of Israel since 1948. Thefarmers of these areas from that date were com-pelled to sell their agricultural produce, mainlyolive oil and tobacco, to a combination of Jewishfactories. Jewish tobacco and Jewish olives are soldseparately to- the same combination of factories athigher prices for the same product.

. The same well-tried method is now employedin the West Bank and this has already caused enor-mous decreases in the income and level of life ofArab farmers and peasants.

But how are Arab peasants and farmers com-pelled to change their cultivation and type of crops?Several methods are employed by the Israeliauthorities. First the Arabs in the occupied terri-tories are dependent on Israeli permits for every-thing. To go from village to town, from one town toanother, from village to distant fields, to sell, to buy,to travel in a truck, the Arab farmer needs a permit

40

from the Israeli authorities. And these permits arewithheld unless the instructions and directions ofthe Israeli Ministry of Agriculture, which are for-mulated to suit the master colonialist plan, aremeticulously observed by Arab farmers andpeasants.

Secondly, there is the method of curfews andarmy units. If some Arab farmers and peasants areobstinate enough to wish to cultivate the part oftheir land which has not been confiscated by theIsraeli authorities, with. fruit trees, against theinstructions of the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture,then they find quickly enough that an Israeli armyunit, usually one of tanks and artillery, comes toexercise, on the land where these fruit trees areplanted. After the exercise there are no trees: andso they have to do what they are told by the officialsof the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture who, in theusual hypocritical Israeli manner, are simply called((counsellors)) and whose advice the Arab farmersand peasants are proclaimed by Zionist propagandato follow of their own free will.

41

Of course the whole atmosphere of oppressiongreatly helps in all this. First there is the blowingup of houses. According to official Israeli figures —and these are much reduced — more than 7000 Arabhouses were blown up by the Israeli authorities inthe West Bank during the first two years of Zionistoccupation.

The word 'house' in these camouflaged Israelifigures usually means a whole block; for in officialIsraeli figures for collective punishment imposedupon Arab towns and villages, a 'house' meansseveral houses connected by a common wall. Thus itis common for the Israeli authorities in Zionist-occupied Palestine to blow up 30 so-called houses,which turn out to contain more than 200 families, oralmost one half of a normal-size village, as happenedin the case of the village of Auja near Jericho in1969.

Then there are administrative arrests. Defenceregulations are in force in the West Bank as in theother parts of Zionist-occupied Palestine. If Arabpeasants are arrested in hundreds in Galilee and theother areas occupied by the Zionists in 1948, theyare arrested in thousands and tens of thousands inthe West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the parts occu-pied in 1967.

The effect of the colonial-pattern Zionist planon Arab agriculture in Zionist-occupied Palestinehas been, as those who drew it up intended it to be,

42

namely, most detrimental to Arab agriculture. Thisis admitted by Zionist authors. Thus we find Israeliwriter, Rosenfeld, asserting in a recent book onIsraeli agriculture, that under the British mandateArab agriculture was much more developed than atpi'esent.

Rosenfeld says: «In the time of the mandate,there used to be Arab citrus orchards and fruit-trees but now these have disappeared)). This is theusual Israeli hypocrisy and double-talk. What Ro-senfeld really means is that they were confiscatedand given to Zionist Jews.

«Now», Rosenfeld adds, «Arab agriculture ispart of Jewish agriculture; and it is the non-develo-ped part». But he does not say that this is the resultof Israel's colonial-pattern plan. An example in pointis the Arab village of Urn Al-Fahm. A ZionistKibbutz, named Tzur Nathan has been establishedon land confiscated from the Arab inhabitants ofthis village. These are 6000 and those of the ZionistKibbutz are only 200. All the irrigation water, as

43

well as all the fertile land, have been given to theZionist Kibbutz. The result is that agriculture giveswork to no more than 4 percent of the inhabitantsof the Arab village of Um Al-Fahm.

This is part of the operation of the Zionistcolonial-pattern plan, because when the Arabvillagers do not find work in their fields which havebeen confiscated by the Israeli authorities, they areforced to work as exploited cheap labour in Zionistindustrial and development projects.

In fact, when a Jewish Kibbutz is built onconfiscated Arab land, the Arab villagers are forcedto build the road, the houses and the factory. Thefruits of their exploited labour are then given to theJewish inhabitants, who enjoy the modern houses ofthe Kibbutz and the clean jobs of the factory.

In the face of these facts, can any one denythat Israel is a colonial-pattern entity and not aprogressive pioneering community as Zionist propa-ganda tries to misrepresent it to be? •

A VOICE OF PROTEST

Herbert Waddams

The first Anglican churchman to speak outagainst Israel's plan to Judaize Jerusalem is CanonHerbert Waddams. In a sermon delivered in Canter-bury Cathedral, which is reproduced below, hedeclares that «the plan for a greater Jerusalem andthe building of badly-designed and badly-sitedhouses and flats by the Jewish authorities must beroundly condemned as an action which can only becalled immoral by any standards recognized in thecivilized world...»

A well-known Psalm includes the words «O prayfor the peace of Jerusalem: may they prosper thatlove thee.» Such a prayer today is certainly needed,though perhaps its most convincing justification

45

would be the theory that prayer should be mostresorted to when there appears to be least chanceof its requests being granted, or when every othermeans of achieving the goal desired seems to behopeless.

Today Jerusalem is the centre of a conflictwhich is highly dangerous to those who live there,but also to the peace of the world. It is a state ofaffairs which for most of the time we prefer to for-get, just because we are at a loss to see how any wayforward can be found.

Christians do not have the answer to theMiddle East problem, to the conflict between Israeland the Arabs. But they ought to do a good deal ofthinking about it, since over many centuries in thepast, Christians have been in large part the authorsof many of its elements and complications. Perhapsthere would be no need for a national home ofrefuge for the Jews if Christians had not begun andcarried on throughout the centuries a frightful andcontinuous policy of hatred and persecution againstthe Jews. There can, I regret to say, be little doubtthat anti-semitism, in the sense of hatred for theJews and maltreatment of them, has largely stem-med from Christians, who have whipped up suchsentiments, and encouraged and taken part in theterrible persecutions that race has suffered inEurope. The story of Jewish persecution has beenperhaps the worst of many bad pages, which havestained the history of a civilization which liked tocall itself Christian: and as we know, it culminated

46

in the frightful and deliberate murder of millions ofjevvs in the extermination camps of Hitler.

0 TRANSFERRED INJUSTICE

All this is miserably true. But there is a dangerwhich has come to light since the second world war,and that is that Christians or Europeans, in a newunderstanding of their crimes, have tried to salvetheir consciences by actions which have transferredinjustice from one group to another, and this is cer-tainly part of the Middle East problem. Because oneman has been deprived of his rights, it is not there-fore desirable that someone else should have hisrights taken away from him so that you may givethem to the first man. To put right an injustice isno good if several more and different injustices arecreated in the process. And whatever may be theright course now. there can be no doubt in any rea-sonable man's mind that the attempt to help theJewish people by providing a national state hasindeed done serious injustice to millions of peoplein the Middle East, who have been deprived of theirhomes and their livelihoods.

But again that does not mean that we can justgo back to the state of affairs which existed beforeit all happened. History may repeat itself sometimes,but it does not go backwards, and problems whichexist today have to be dealt with as they are, full ofliving historical facts which will not go away.

47

Of course, the idea that Israel was the outcomeof a kind thought on behalf of the nations of theworld would be quite absurd. It is the consequenceof generations of intrigue and pressure from theside of the Zionists, and of the supposed needs ofEuropean, and especially British diplomacy on an-other, side, The British are fond of thinking tothemselves that they never do anything except fromthe highest motives. Unfortunately nobody believesthat except the British, and it has become a per-manent and dangerous form of illusion. The BalfourDeclaration was a calculated act of British policy.The British took the Mandate for Palestine after thefirst World War because they wanted it, and thoughtthat it would be in their own interest. When itproved not to be, and became too hot for them, theyratted in 1948 in one of the most disgraceful episodesin British history. So Christians in Britain ought tobe aware of the history of their own country, and ofits consequent responsibility for doing what it canto put things right. I need hardly say that in spite ofthe bad sides of the story, the British had an ex-cellent record of rule in Palestine when they were incharge, and a number of outstandingly able officialsand public servants have made valuable and brilliantcontributions to the well-being of the people forwhose welfare they had responsibility. But that doesnot change the main facts.

48

„ THE MESSAGE CONFUSED

But Christians have also caused trouble inanother way. They have—or many of them have—confused the message of the Bible with the politicalsituation in the Middle East in the past few decades,with which the Bible has nothing or almost nothingto do in any direct way. They have by their naiveteencouraged people to see in the 20th century theliteral fulfilment of prophecies in the Old Testamentwhich applied only to the situation several centuriesbefore the birth of Christ. These prophecies wereoften made in a mood of symbolism or moralteaching rather than political thought, and in anycase they were innocent of any interpretation whichthe message of Christ was later to bring. A recentexpert study of this question by qualified scholarswrote: «A great deal of religious-sounding languageclings to the present conflict in the Middle East, andit is necessary to alert even well-instructed Chris-tians against the danger of being swayed by naiveappeals to alleged 'fulfilments of prophecy' or bysuperficial attempts to show that the hand of Godis to be seen in the course of a particular and loca-lized series of events. It cannot be too stronglyemphasized that there is no single solution to thepresent immensely complex situation in the MiddleEast which can be commended purely on religiousgrounds.))

The sort of nationalism which is found in theOld Testament, much of which forecasts the victory

49

of the Jews over their enemies, often in bloodthirstyand certainly unchristian terms, makes the use ofthe Old Testament very difficult for Arab Christianswho live in the Middle East, especially since the use

of the word Israel for the present Jewish State andthe word used in the Old Testament is the same. Itis not hard to see that for simple Christians suchlanguage is very confusing, and it is hardly to bewondered at that Arab Christians have trouble here.Indeed it is surprising that they have not been moreviolent in their reaction against the Old Testamentthan they have.

50

g MISUSE OF PROPHECIES

Christians must be aware of these difficultiesand not make them worse by encouraging absurdand oversimple ideas about the Old Testament. Theyabove all others ought to stress again and again thatthe Old Testament is only to be understood in thelight of the Gospel, and that to take Old Testamentprophecies literally today is to misuse the Bible,and to abandon the insights of Jesus. From theearliest years the Christian interest in Jerusalemitself has been intense, and often, instead of beinga city of peace, Jerusalem, together with the otherholy places, has been the centre of bitter feuds andwars. The crusades, which themselves covered seve-ral centuries, were claimed as Christian in theirdemonic inspiration, and though associated withmany noble ideals, were in fact totally misconceivedas Christian operations. They were a betrayal of thetrue Christian faith, and because they were betra-yals, they brought their own melancholy reward.Not only were they finally unsuccessful, but in thelight of history they can be seen to have left a legacyof bad feeling and hatred between Europe and theIslamic East, and in the process of their pursuit theydestroyed the unity of Christendom and fatallyweakened the heritage of Byzantium and theChristian East.

Most of the stability which Jerusalem and itsneighbouring areas have enjoyed was due to thepower of the Ottoman Empire. It was not the sort of

51

stability which Christians welcomed, subject as theywere to a Muslim power which was inimical to theirfaith. Nevertheless the alternative would probablyhave been far worse in practical terms. During thisperiod the so-called Christian powers of Europeintrigued through their diplomats to gain as muchinfluence as possible and used the local churches forthis end. The Russians tried to infiltrate through theOrthodox Churches of Palestine, the French throughthe Roman Catholics, during the nineteenth century,while the Greeks jealously guarded their monopolyof the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre.

I am not suggesting that all this was whollybad. There were some good features of the situation.What I am stating, however, is that it is no goodnow, when the situation is once more highly chargedand dangerous, for Christians to take a -holier thanthou' attitude and like Pilate, try to wash theirhands of the whole affair. They may not have theknow-how to tell the political powers what it is bestto do, but they certainly have an obligation to bearsome burdens and sacrifices in the cause of a justand permanent settlement, if such a thing is stillconceivable as a practical proposition.

H DISGRACEFUL MOVE

The implication of Christians means that Jeru-salem itself is also a case on which they ought tohave some views. For example, as we have learnt inThe Times and other reliable organs of news, the

52

plan for a greater Jerusalem and the building ofbadly-designed and badly-sited houses and flats bythe Jewish authorities must be roundly condemnedag an action which can only be called immoral byany standards recognized in the civilized world. Instating this it must be made plain that Christiansdo not do so because they personally dislike thebuildings: that is argely irrelevant. The truth isthat there is not a single group of independentoutside experts, Jewish or non-Jewish, who can befound to put up a convincing case for this disgracefulmove. It is plainly and undisguisedly an act whichflies in the face of legal, moral, and political princi-ples, and must be universally condemned by inter-national authority.

The United Nations has resolved withoutopposition that the annexation of Jerusalem byIsrael is invalid. What have Christians, as such, tosay about this? They must, if they care for peace,support the only international authority which canmaintain peace, and therefore they must press forthe United Nations resolution to be observed.

The cause of peace in the Middle East is notserved by trying to recreate a state of affairs whichexisted in the past, simply because it existed. It canonly come through an overall settlement which willguarantee to all concerned the safeguards on whichtheir security and future prosperity can alone rest.Here again Christians have no particular solutionwhich can be claimed to be more Christian than the

53

rest. All they can do as Christians is to press onGovernments the urgent need to seek for a settle-ment and to take initiatives whenever there is achance to do so, and also to ask that every possiblemeans of finding a settlement has been exploredfully.

• HUMAN TRAGEDY

But above all the plight of the refugees musthaunt men's minds. No politicking or arguments

54

bout the future of this or that must ever be allowedobscure the dreadful human tragedy of a million

nc[ a half refugees, fifty per cent under the age oftwenty, most of them living in camps with no hopeand no. future. These refugees are the direct outcomeOf the British withdrawal from the area in 1948,made more numerous and more widespread bysubsequent events. Britain has a special responsi-bility for making sure that they are at least providedwith the minimum needs of health. The work ofUlSTRWA, which keeps them alive, is running on aminimum budget which is all the time threatenedwith cuts. Christians should not only continue tosupport the activities of their own agencies forresistance, but should constantly press upon theirgovernment here the need for greater help and formore imaginative plans for the future.

We must indeed pray for the peace of Jeru-salem, but not only pray, we must work and try touse our influence to look for better days; and thenperhaps the rest of the prayer of the Psalmist mayone day come true, that not only will Jerusalemhave peace within her walls but plenteousnesswithin her palaces. •

55

DJLTALESTINE?-PARTITION

E SO L UT ION

by: Yousef Khatib

In the well-known biblical story, King Solomonawarded a disputed baby to its real mother whom herecognized through her willingness to abandon her ownbaby rather than have it partitioned.

Similarly, the Arab people of Palestine rejected thePartition resolution of 1947, because this meant partitioningtheir homeland.

On November 29, 1947 the United Nations Violated itsown Charter (Clauses 10 and 14) and the Declaration ofHuman Rights, as well as the right of self-determination,when it decided to partition Palestine.

On 24th November, 1947, and while the U.S.was still pressuring many small countries (Haiti,Liberia, Philippines, etc...) to have them vote forpartition, the Arab countries suggested taking thePalestine case to the International Court of Justice

56

at The Hague to< determine the competence of theUnited Nations regarding the partition of Palestine.But this also failed under pressure from, the U.S.Legal opinion on the subject, however, is available:

«It is doubtful if the United Nations», writesProfessor Browlie, «has a -capacity to conveytitle' inter alia because the Organisation can-not assume the role of territorial sovereign...Thus the resolution of 1947 containing a Parti-tion Plan for Palestine was probably ultravires (outside the competence of the U.N.),and, if it was not, was not binding on memberStates in any case.»(Principles of Public International Law,

Oxford — Clarendon Press, 1966, pp. 161-162).

57

The following points further challenge thelegal validity of the U.N. Palestine PartitionResolution:

1. «Article 14 authorises the General Assem-bly only to make recommendations. But this resolu-tion goes beyond simple recommendation.)) (H.Kelsen: The Law Of The United Nations London1951 - p. 1954).

2. There is «a distinction between making arecommendation and adopting a plan prejudicial tothe territorial integrity of a people and their politi-cal and legal status, and appointing a committee ofthe assembly to carry out the plan,»

(Repertory Of Practice Followed By The Uni-ted Nations Organ Vol. 1, p. 471).

3. «The only case where the United Nationscan create a new State (is) by detaching territorywhich is 'not yet autonomous' from the colonialpower. Besides, the birth of a new State is thenatural consequence of the trusteeship system setup by the United Nations Charter. But these pro-visions do not apply in the case of Palestine.))

(Cf. A. Mathiot: Le Statut Des Territoires De-pendantes D'apres La Charte Des Nations Unies.Revue Generale du Droit International Public, 1946,p. 159 ff.).

On 26th November 1947, the U.N. was to voteon partitioning Palestine, but up to that moment

neither the Zionists nor the White House were con-fident of obtaining the votes they needed, so theypOStponed the meeting till the 28th on the pretextthat 27th was Thanksgiving Day. Arab delegatesoffered to forego their scheduled speeches to letvoting commence immediately, but their offer wasrejected!!!

A number of smaller countries were still notsure they were going to vote in favour, so postpone-ment was necessary to secure their support. Methodsused may be judged in the light of the following:

Arthur Hayes Sulzburger, publisher of theNewYork Times, describing Zionist methods, said:

«I dislike the coercive methods of Zionists whoin this country have not hesitated to use eco-nomic means to silence persons who havedifferent views. I object to the attempt atcharacter assassination (of those who do notagree with them.»

27th November, 1947: Thanksgiving Day. ButPresident Truman was not in a festive mood. Thisis how an American journalist describes his actionson that day:

«Few know it», he wrWte after the vote, «butPresident Truman cracked down harder on hisState Department thajn ever before to swingthe United Nations vote for the partition ofPalestine. Truman called Acting SecretaryLovett over to the White House on Wednesday

59

and again on Fiday warning him hedemand a full explanation if nationsusually line up with the United States failedto do so on Palestine...»

James Forrestal says on the same subject:«The methods that had been used... to bringcoercion and duress on other nations in theGeneral Assembly bordered closely on scan-dal.»

Although voting was supposed to take place onWednesday (26th November, 1947), it was postponedtill the morning of Friday, 28th November, underpressure from the U.S. and the Zionists in order tosecure sufficient votes, and was postponed again tillSaturday 20th.

Congressman Lawrence H. Smith declared inthe U.S. Congress:

«Let's take a look at the record, Mr. Speaker,and see what happened in the TJ.N. Assemblymeeting prior to the vote on partition. A twothird vote was required to pass the resolution.On two occasions the Assembly was to voteand twice it was postponed. It was obviousthat the delay was necessary because the pro-ponents (the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., both infavour of the Partition Resolutions) did nothave the necessary votes. In the meantime, itis reliably reported that intense pressure wasapplied to the delegates of the small nations by

the U.S. member and by officials at the highestlevels in Washington. Now that is a seriouscharge. When the matter was finally consideredon the 29th, what happened? The decisive votesfor partition were cast by Haiti, Liberia andthe Philippines. These votes were sufficient tomake the two-thirds majority. Previously,these countries opposed the move... The pres-sure by our delegates, by our officials, and bythe private citizens of the U.S. constitutes re-prehensible conduct against them and againstus.»Voting on the Palestine Partition Resolution

took place after three days of behind-the-scenecoercion and intrigue.

Countries voting hi favour were: U.S., U.S.S.R.,Sweden, Norway, France, Belgium, Luxemburg,Canada, South Africa, Bolivia, Dominican, Equador,Venezuela, Panama, Haiti, Guatemala, Paraguay,Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Holland,Australia, Iceland. Brazil, New Zealand, Nicaragua,Peru, Costa Rica, Liberia and the Philippines.

Countries voting against were: Syria, Egypt,Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, the Yemen, Turkey,Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Persia, Cuba andGreece.

Countries abstaining: the United Kingdom,Mexico, Salvadore, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Chile,Honduras, Ethiopia and China.

61

Following are the main provisions of the Parti,tion Resolution. The resolution opens with clearlycoercive clauses requesting that:

1. The Security Council take the necessarymeasures as provided for in the plan for the imple.mentation of the resolution.

2. The Security Council consider, if circums-tances during the transitional period require suchconsideration, whether the situation in Palestineconstitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides thatsuch a threat exists, and in order to maintain inter-national peace and security, the Security Councilshould supplement the authorization of the GeneralAssembly by taking measures to empower the U.N.Commission to exercise in Palestine the functionswhich are assigned to it by this resolution.

3. The Security Council determine as a threatto the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggres-sion any attempt to alter by force the settlementenvisaged by this resolution.

The General Assembly calls upon the inhabi-tants of Palestine to take such steps as may benecessary on their part to put this plan into effect.

Isn't this the same as telling a convict about toliang: Now be a good boy and see to it that therope does not slip!

The Partition Resolution resulted in the esta-blishment of the «State of Israel». The imperialist

62

motive for the establishment of Israel was to severthe unity of the Arab Homeland, and to keep theArab people occupied, fighting one war after another•with a view to exhausting the enormous materialand moral potentials of the Arab Nation and therebyinterfering with its progress and development andthe role it can play in the world liberation move-ment. •

T

A. B. C.Of The

Palestine Question

In connection with the ((Palestine SolidarityWeek» organized last May in the capitals of tencountries in five continents, the Art Section of theDepartment of Information and National Guidanceof the Palestine Liberation Organization prepareda series of 33 illustrations which give the basic factsof the Palestine Question.

The following four illustrations are the seventhof eight consecutive batches planned for publicationin «Resistance» issues of May — December, 1971:

64

i 3 s § s j ? iM 0 g S f f l E-< » > 3 w S

g w | «2 > £</> enw»

-0 g30 5O Z

m T>tn mtn oTT C?3Dm ^§:z oO X

tn

o3

5 o inm o -H<" S iL5!iH z m

* T , X

m ^ rn tn

1^1In tn rn m

<umtn

33m%~4Xm

G"cv , .I/I

5^ffico z

3crj

>b

I zm"

g o

tn Z E >3j c 3r m^ g m r~'- ° o 2

oi

C/l

o

3= zS >Q 5

"' ino Nx o

~n>

O -2ft m

« z—i rn

1^

en

03 tno

—i >^tn tn> >8 22 o

s: oS z3D O> -n

rn2m

33 hr

5 33Z >o £2

tnTJ -•

- S-z o^

Pmtn O— Ztn tn

> N

S o

0>i zo offl"i

Pni

m00

1969: 2,450,020 PALESTINIANS

IN SYRIA160,924

IN LEBANON177,859

PALESTINIANS IN

OTHER COUNTRIES100,000

IN "ISRAEI,300,000

IN GAZAj444,511.

I IN THE WEST BANK745,719

IN JORDAN521,007

JEWISH IMMIGRATION

CONTINUES

2,4348oo • JEWISH CITIZENS .OF/NUMEROUS COUNTRIES OF

2,239.000 THE WORLD CONTINUEDTO MIGRATE TO OCCUPIEDPALESTINE SINCE 1948-

1.911,200

1,667455

1,450.217

'7SS.702

so 6ui(y yons ou SDAA 3v/aiy_£

1969: 2,450,020 PALESTINIANSJEWISH IMMIGRATION

CONTINUES

2,434,800• JEWISH CITIZENS .OF...-NUMEROUS COUNTRIES OF

2,239,000 THE WORLD CONTINUEDTO MIGRATE TO OCCUPIED jPALESTINE SINCE 1948.

1,911,200

IN SYRIA160,924

IN LEBANON177,859

PALESTINIANS IN

OTHER COUNTRIESKiO.OfK:

IN 1SRAE300,000

IN THE WEST BANK745,719

IN JORDAN521.007

REVIEWOF

EVENTS

(October 19U)

Cairo Named 1st Capital of theArab Federation

On October 5, the leaders of Syria, Egypt, andLibya chose Cairo as the capital of the new Fede-ration of Arab Republics. The decision was takenby the presidents of the three countries at a two-hour private session.

The choice of Cairo had been expected afterthe three leaders, meeting as members of the fede-ration's Presidency Council, decided on October 4,that President Sadat would be the Chairman of theFederation for the first two years.

The headquarters of the federation, groupingmore than 40 million people would be in the Cairosuburb of Heliopolis.

The Presidency Council began its first sessionm Monday night, October 4, during which the threeleaders took an oath of allegiance which said: «I

swear by Almighty God to safeguard the Federationrespect the constitution and law, and struggle forthe service of the people's interests and the achieve-ment of the goals of the Arab nation.»

The federation, which is considered a nucleusfor overall Arab unity, was approved by anoverwhelming majority in a referendum in the threestates in August.

• President Sadat in Moscow

On October 11, President Anwar Sadat wasgiven full state honours and greeted by all three topKremlin leaders when he arrived for three days oftalks.

The military and political aspects of the MiddleEast conflict dominated the talks he held with theSoviet leaders.

Speaking as a guest of honour at a Kremlinlunch, President Sadat reiterated the fact thatEgypt had -made every possible effort to attain apeaceful settlement, but Israel's intransigence hadclosed the door on it. Then President Sadat added:«We proceeded from the conviction that force, andonly force, is the method of putting pressure onIsrael and liquidating the consequences of aggressionagainst our lands».

Podgorny pledged continued Kremlin effortsfor a political settlement coupled with energetic

66

'measures to strengthen the defences of the Arabcountries. Soviet leaders, in the meanwhile, pledgedtheir full political and military support to the Arabsso long as Israel's aggression continues and its after-maths are not liquidated.

The Soviet Head of State issued a rallying callfor unity of action among all opponents of imperia-lism. He accused Israel and the U.S. of trying totake advantage of Israeli occupation of Arab terri-tories to influence the political situation in Arabcountries.

• U.N. Human Rights Team Condemns Israel

A three-nation panel formed by the GeneralAssembly to investigate violations of human rightsin the occupied Arab territories, reported on October15, that violations discovered last year «have con-tinued and have become even more manifest.))

The report added that Israel is carrying out apolicy of progressive and systematic elimination ofevery vestige of Palestinian presence in the occupiedterritories of the Middle East. «This policy wouldhave the effect of obliterating Arab culture and theArab way of life in the territories contrary to inter-national law», the report added.

The three-member group, officially called theSpecial Committee to Investigate Israeli PracticesAffecting the Human Rights of the Population ofthe Occupied Territories, visited Amman and Beirutin July and heard a total of 49 witnesses. This is its

67

second report. The first was considered by theGeneral Assembly last year.

As examples of Israel's policy, the Committee,headed by Ceylon Ambassador Amirasinghe citedthe establishment of settlements for Israeli Jews inoccupied Jerusalem, Hebron, parts of the JordanValley, the Golan Heights, Gaza, Northern Sinai andSharm el-Sheikh.

The Committee said in its report that thispolicy «will render more difficult any eventualrestoration of the Palestinian people's property andother rights.»

In the Special Committee's view, «the right ofthe inhabitants of the occupied territories to remainin their homeland is unqualified and inalienable.))

The Committee also said that the most pressingneed at the moment is an effective arrangement tosafeguard the human rights of the population.

1 1

Members of the panel have been barred fromentering the Israeli occupied territories.

In the letter of transmittal which introducedthe Committee's report, the Chairman said that theevidence presented to the Committee confirmed itsimpression that policies and practices violating thehuman rights have continued and become even moremanifest. This applies to policies of settlement andof annexation of certain territories such as thepolicy of settlement carried out in the Golan Heightsand parts of the West Bank, while East Jerusalemprovides a clear instance of the policy of annexation.

«The very fact of the existence of such policies,openly admitted and proclaimed by members ofIsraeli government and leaders, is, in the Specialcommittee's opinion a grave violation of humanrights of the population in the occupied territories.))

• A P.L.O. Delegation Visits Moscowand Berlin

During the second half of October last, a dele-gation representing the Palestine Liberation Organi-zation, headed by Mr. Yasser Arafat, commandoleader and Chairman of the Executive Committeeof .the Organization, paid a visit to the Soviet Unionand the German Democratic Republic.

During the visit, the Soviet representativesreaffirmed their firm support for the PalestinePeople's struggle to liberate the occupied territoriesand liquidate the consequences of Israel's aggression.

69

In the joint communique issued after the conclusionof the delegation's visit, it was stated that the SovietUnion stands firmly on the side of the PalestineResistance movement.

The P.L.O. delegation expressed, in the nameof the Palestine people, its deep gratitude to thepeoples of the Soviet Union and of DemocraticGermany for the support they give to the Arabliberation struggle.

The Soviet and the Palestinian representatives

70

stressed the importance of the unity of all progres-sive forces in the Arab homeland and the necessityof consolidating Arab ties and cooperation with thesocialist countries.

0 Peking's Entry to United Nations Deals ABlow to U.S.A.

A new phase in the history of the United Na-tions opened on October 26 with the replacement ofTaiwan by Peking as the sole representative of theChinese people in the General Assembly andSecurity Council.

After the Assembly's decisive vote, SecretaryGeneral U Thant announced that Peking had beenvoted in and Taiwan out — the first nation to beexpelled from the world body.

The massive defeat by 76 votes to 35, with 17abstentions defeated the United State's attempt tosave Taiwan from expulsion and drew an angryoutburst from U.S. Ambassador George Bush, whoreferred to the vote as «This moment of infamy.»

Later, U.S. Secretary of State William Rogerstold a Washington press conference that, althoughTaiwan's expulsion would harm the United Nations,the United States bowed to the will of themajority. He also expressed satisfaction at Peking'sadmission, which he alleged was consistent with

[U.S. policy of easing tension in the Pacific.

Meanwhile, U Thant asked that there shouldbe no bitterness over the outcome of the debate and

71

told delegates that the vote should be considered anessential step towards a more effective and realisticinternational system. He also said that the 26thsession of the General Assembly would be conside-red a session of decision. He immediately cabledPeking of the outcome of the vote. Thus Peking wona place in the U.N. and a permament SecurityCouncil seat, with veto powers, in a dramatic votein the Assembly.

The vote, after the worst U.S. defeat in theUnited Nations history, led to scenes of applaudingand jubilation among delegates. Wild cheers rangout when it was announced that the Assembly haddecided to admit Peking and expel Taiwan.

China's admission to the Security Council willfocus world attention anew on the 15-nation bodywhich carried the main hopes of post-World-War IIplanners for effective peace keeping. Its presence isbelieved to make the Council a broader world forum.

In the voting process Israel followed its usualcourse of opportunist maneuvering. At first it backedthe U.S. motion calling for a two China representa-tion in the United Nations. Later, however, when itbecame clear that Taiwan's expulsion was certain,Israel turned against the U.S. proposal.

The precedent of the expelling of NationalistChina should be applied to Israel, which has beenignoring United Nations resolutions ever since itcame into being. •

72

EVIEWSWAR AND PEACE IN PALESTINE

Guerre et paix en Palestine ou 1'histoire ducoaflit isralo-arabe (1917-1967). Editions de laBaceoniere, Newchatel, Switzerland. 218 pages.

Simon Jargy, author of the book reviewedbelow is a distinguished orientalist. The reviewer,Y. Shraiber, is a well-known socialist writer andpolitical commentator.

The chief merit of this book is that it disclosesthe causes of the Palestine conflict.

Imperialist and Zionist propaganda has workedhard to falsify the history of the distant and recentpast, and to distort the real nature of the Palestine

73

tragedy. The aim has been to substantiate Israel'sclaim to ((special rights» not only to Palestine, butto> areas that have never been part of it, and to extolIsrael's so-called «Kulturtrager» mission in theMiddle East.

Jargy makes an important contribution tolaying bare these and other propaganda myths byconcluding from his study that the roots of theconflict are not «racialist» Arab feelings, but «adefinite policy which was apparently aimed atsaddling Palestine with a new order and threatenedthe rights of its traditional inhabitants—rightswhich they considered sacred».

There is no doubt now—and the author makesthis quite clear—that the ((definite policy» was theimperialist policy of sxdivide and rule» which theBritish colonisers pursued both directly and throughZionist leaders. The latter were not interested incoexistence and cooperation between the Jewishimmigrants and the basic Arab population, butrather in creating an empire of their own in Pales-tine by driving out as many Arabs as possible.

The problem! of Arab refugees, which arosealmost simultaneously with the creation of Israel,has for these last twenty-three years actually beena most acute feature of the Israeli-Arab conflict.Throughout this period, the Israeli government hasrefused to implement the UN decisions requiringIsrael to acknowledge the rights of the refugees to

74

• return or (at their option) to receive compensationfor property losses incurred. Yet these decisions arejust as binding as the resolution on the establish-ment of Israel itself. The Zionists now argue that

75

since many Jews have migrated from Arab countries,the Palestine refugees should simply take theirplaces. This argument is no more valid than anyothers that have come before and falls apart as soonas it is put to criticism.

Jews and Arabs lived and cooperated with eachother in the Middle East for many centuries. No oneever deprived the Jews in Arab countries of theirhomes or their means of livelihood, no one everdrove them from their birthplace, as Begin'scutthroats have done to the Palestine Arabs. Proofof this can be found even in Israeli newspapers. TheTel-Aviv Al Hamishmar of September 17, 1969quoted the following statement made by the ChiefRabbi of Iraq, Sassoon Khedhoori, in an interviewhe gave to a Lebanon newspaper: «Before the crea-tion of the state of Israel, the Jews of Iraq livedunder the best of conditions: they served as officersin the army, they were Ministers, managers, lawyers,doctors, and so on. We cannot dissociate ourselvesfrom the struggle against Zionism and Israel, whichfrom the moment of its creation has been a sourceof woe to the Jews of the East.» Eloquent testimonyto the incompatibility between Zionism and good-neighbourliness!

It is strange indeed that, although the Zionistshave been unable to forget the so-called «PromisedLand» for 2,000 years, they cannot realise that it isonly twenty-three years since the Palestine refugeeswere exiled from the land of their birth. But then

76

' again, common sense is not one of Zionism's strong

points.The historical truth is that Israel has had many

opportunities to make peace with her neighbours.We can mention the decisions of the Bandung Con-ference of 1945, signed by 13 Arab states, whichenvisaged a peaceful settlement on the basis of UNresolutions and respect for the rights of both peoples—Israeli and Arab. In 1955, President Nasser tolda Newsweek correspondent: «We do not demandpeace on our terms. At the same time, we insist thatIsrael show goodwill and sincerity by carrying outthe decisions of the UN, which she has so far re-jected. Our only concern is to protect the interestsof the Palestinians)).

But the rulers of Israel have never beenmotivated by considerations of goodwill. Theyrejected the opportunity, and in committing aggres-sion against Egypt in 1956, showed that they preferto serve imperialism rather than their own interests.

Israel's attack on her Arab neighbours in June1967 turned the Middle East into a smouldering firethat threatened to spread into a major conflagration.The Palestine problem has also been strained to thelimit; Israel's policy has made of the Palestine Arabsan exiled, refugee people. Could any people beexpected to resign itself to such a fate?

The Palestinian liberation movement is growingstronger and freeing itself of adventuristic slogans.

77

It is denning its goals more precisely: liberation ofthe territories occupied by Israel and recognition ofthe rights of the Palestine Arabs to live on theirland.

During the two decades preceding the June1967 war, the Israeli rulers merely ignored thelegitimate rights of the Palestine Arabs, but nowthe picture has changed. The guns were still roaringand the smoke was still rising from the ruins whenthe Israeli press spoke of the ((great historicalchance» to settle the Palestinian problem «once andfor all». As always, the members of the Herat Move-ment, Menachem Begin's party, were the mostoutspoken. Here is what Ha'aretz wrote on June 21,1967: «So'ine people in the Herut Movement arealready referring to the west bank of the Jordanas a new Rhodesia—annexation without the grantingof political rights.» A remarkable avowal! Nofurther comment, as they say, is necessary.

The colonial posture adopted by the Israelileaders is particularly dangerous because it is con-nected with imperialist schemes to force a «neworders on the Middle East in which Israeli governorswould rule over the defeated peoples. Quitecharacteristic., was the statement by EdmondRothschild at the millionaires' conference in Jeru-

salem in June 1969, that he hoped that the MiddleEast would become Israel's ((sphere of influences.

There is but one way to achieve peace in the

78

Middle East and gradually root out the hostility inPalestine, and that is for Israel to stop serving the

interests of imperialism.

While we acknowledge the many positivefeatures of Simon Jargy's book, we must mention,at least in brief, some of its shortcomings. Theauthor cannot be accused of wittingly distortingfacts, but he sometimes sins by silence. His determi-nation to remain scientifically impartial sometimesmakes him over-complacent.

Thus, when he speaks of the ((successes ofJewish-Arab coexistence between wars», the authoris obviously moved by the laudable wish to reaffirmthe fact, true in and of itself, that the two peoplesare certainly not suffering from inherent dncom-patibilitys. Jargy is quite right in denying theexistence of any kind of special Arab animositytowards Jews. But he seems not to be able to con-ceive that the obstacle to goodneighbourliness couldbe the position taken by the other side. Yet it isbecause of this position that the ((successes ofJewish-Arab coexistences have been far from

wonderful.

Let us turn for a moment to another author,Arthur Koestler, who, unlike Jargy, obviouslysympathises with Zionism. He admits, however, thatthe Arabs were for them [the Zionists] a political

problem, but in no way a moral or human one. The

presence of the Arabs was for them an unfortunate

79

circumstance, as is furniture inadvertently leftbehind in a house by temporary tenants. The Jews(read: Zionists), he continues, never published asingle book or a single periodical in the Arabiclanguage. The Zionists saw themselves as represen-tatives of a chosen race, and the Arabs as secondclass people.

The book makes no mention whatsoever of theunseemly acts of the British government andadministration during the war, which could havebeen used to illustrate the British attitude towardsPalestine as a pawn in the big diplomatic game. TheBalfour Declaration led to the infringement of Arabrights and the gradual displacement of Arabs fromtheir native land.

Jargy cites 1920 as the year that the Haganahwas established, but he does not mention the factthat the quasi-military Hashomer organisation hadexisted since 1905. He obviously exaggerates thescope of the struggle waged in 1944-1945 by theJewish Agency and the Haganah against terroristsfrom Irgun. There is good reason to believe that theactions of the latter did not come as such a surpriseto the leaders of world Zionism. Incidentally, theBritish army used members of the Irgun in militaryoperations in the Middle East theatre.

Thus, Simon Jargy's book, though not anexhaustive work on the history of Palestine, ishelpful testimony from a subjectively honestbourgeois researcher. •

80

ResistanceOperat ions

On October 4, Palestinian commandos set offexplosives at a telephone-relay station in a Tel Avivsuburb and caused heavy damage to the Ha'akmlastreet building and disrupted communications overa wide area.

On October 5, Palestinian commandos attackedan enemy patrol, near Zion Orange Grove to thesouth of Gaza, with hand grenades and otherweapons, killing all the six soldiers of the patrol.

On October 6, Palestinian commandos laid anambush to an enemy military vehicle patrolling onthe road to Khan Yunis, killing or wounding all itsoccupants.

On October 7, an Israeli fiberglass factory inthe Hamidieh settlement north of Beisan was des-troyed by a commando unit. Men from the unitplaced highly explosive charges in the boat factory.The factory was completely destroyed and nearbyestablishments and installations were also affected.

On October 9, sixteen people were injuredwhen a grenade was hurled in the «Street of theChains» less than half a mile from the Western(Wailing) Wall in East Jerusalem.

On October 10, Palestinian commandos ambu-shed an enemy military jeep on its way to Gaza andattacked it with various weapons, damaging the

81

vehicle and killing or wounding its 3 occupants.On October 15, a Palestinian commando unit

ambushed an enemy patrol on the main road bet-ween Abu Taweelah settlement and Aljour inNorthern Sinai and attacked with hand grenades anIsraeli military jeep carrying an Israeli officer,called Captain Abu Mousa, together with 3 othersoldiers, returning from a visit to a Bedouin Sheikhin the region. The vehicle was destroyed and itsoccupants were killed.

On October 16, Palestinian commandos in theoccupied territories planted timed bombs and highlyexplosive charges at one of the public Squares inKiryat Gat. The charges exploded, killing orwounding a number of persons.

On October 18, an enemy military vehicle,carrying provisions, was destroyed and set on firewhen it struck a mine planted by Palestinian com-mandos on the main road between Rafah and AlArish.

On October 19, a bomb blew up an Israeli busin the central part of Haifa after all passengers hadgot off at the bus terminal. The bus itself waswrecked in Plumer Square, near the main railwaystation. The bus terminal was littered with smashedglass and ripped metal. Three people were injuredin the explosion. Eyewitnesses, however, said that itwas a tremendous explosion. Nearby shops and othervehicles also were damaged.

Several Israeli military technicians travelleddaily in the bus which was destroyed. The passen-gers were killed or wounded.

I

On October 21, Palestinian commandos blewup a power pylon on the main line between Haifaand Acre, in northern Israel. The pylon, near KiryatHaim, was completely destroyed and power in thearea was cut.

On October 23, a Palestinian commando unitplanted explosive charges and incendiary bombs atone of the military industrial regions on the road toPetah Tikva in one of the suburbs of Tel Aviv. Thecharges went off, damaging a large part of theregion, including 4 laboratories and several cars.The explosion started fires which spread to nearbygarages. Enemy losses were heavy.

On October 24, Palestinian commandos planteda net of mines on the main road between Tel Avivand Eilat, near Ein Yahav settlement. The minewent off under an enemy «Egged» bus, carryingseveral soldiers from Tel Aviv to Eilat. Many of theoccupants of the bus were killed or wounded andthe bus was destroyed and set on fire.

On October 26, a Palestinian commando unitplaced highly explosive charges at a power stationat Ajloun settlement to the West of Hebron. Theexplosives went off, destroying the electric generatorand killing two guards.

On October 28, Palestinian commandos rocketeda concentration of enemy military vehicles in theHeatel region in the occupied Golan Heights, scoringdirect hits and setting them on fire. Ambulances,rescue squads and fire brigades were rushed to thescene to fight the fires and evacuate Israeli casual-ties. "

83

by: Arnold Toynbeeand Geoffrey Furlonge

Israel's defiance of the international community overthe status of Jerusalem has been universally condemned.Six months ago, in a striking letter to the «Times», Pro-fessor Arnold Toynbee and Sir Geoffrey Furlonge expressedthe view that «the present policies of the Israeli Govern-ment not only threaten the beauty and the character ofJerusalem but must seriously jeopardize the chances ofachieving peace in the Middle East».

In the following letter, published in the London«Times» on October Z, 1971, Professor Toynbee and SirGeoffrey Furlonge reiterate their condemnation of Israel'spolicy of facing the world with a «fait accompli» in Jeru-salem and declare that Israel «has enjoyed in the past toogreat a measure of international indulgence and that it hastaken improper advantage of tbis».

84

On March 15 you were good enough to publisha letter from us in which we expressed our deepanxiety about the fate of Jerusalem. In it we drewattention to the criticisms which had been widelyvoiced, in your columns and elsewhere of the poli-tically motivated building programme by which theIsraelis were striving to alter the universalcharacter of the Holy City. We argued that, in itsself-centred pursuit of political ambitions, theGovernment of Israel was not only threatening thebeauty of Jerusalem, but also damaging the prospectof a lasting settlement in the Middle East.

Since then the situation has gravely deteriora-ted. The building programme has gone forward withhaste and with .a disregard for aesthetic considera-tions which was graphically illustrated in the picturepublished in your issue of September 28. Theappearance of the city has been irreparably im-paired. The bitterness and resentment of the Arabshas justifiably increased — and it is directed notonly against the Israelis, who have committed thisoutrage, but also against the international commu-nity, which has done nothing to give effect to itsformal and universal condemnation of Israeli policyin Jerusalem.

On September 25 the Security Council oncemore, without opposition, censured that policy andstressed the illegality of any action taken by Israelto alter the status of Jerusalem, thus voicing theopinion not only of Israel's enemies but o"f her few

85

reihaifiing friends as well. And once again theIsraeli Government immediately rejected the resolu-tion and announced its intention to persevere withthe policies and actions which the Security Councilhad specifically condemned.

To express its contempt for internationalopinion may give satisfaction to a governmentconscious of its growing isolation. It cannot be takenas a sign either of strength or of maturity. Israeldepends, as few other states do, on the good will ofthe outside world; the opinion is gaining groundthat it has enjoyed in the past too great a measure

86

* * ' i , ' * "• - <

r *; -"• -* :. *. -'H'-v "'«&»' •?"„ ' ' ^ "' - ' ?~ -•-'- Y ^ r " *&T,' r "'""

&" f*^^7^^;4^^6^B^--.V'

of international indulgence and that it has takenimproper advantage of this.

In one respect the situation has altered for thebetter since we wrote to you in march. Then, wedeplored the fact that there had been no formalprotest in the Christian world against the desecra-tion of Jerusalem. One week later, a leading articlein the official newspaper of the Vatican «L'Osser-vatore Romano», called for an end to the policy of«slow suffocations by which the non-Jewish com-munities in Jerusalem felt their rights and theirinterests to be threatened.

In April, «The Tablet)) also carried a leading

87

article, deploring Israel's actions in Jerusalem andarguing that they were likely to prevent a justsettlement in the Middle East. In July, an article inthe Rome review, «La Civilta Cattolica», spoke ofthe disregard shown by the Government of Israelfor humane as well as aesthetic standards; thewriter suggested that in its hasty attempt to achievea «fait accompli» the government was anxious toforestall the rising tide of criticism directed againstits policies in Jerusalem from members of theyounger generation in Israel.

Up to that point there had been no authoritativeword of guidance for members of the Church ofEngland. But on August 8, preaching in CanterburyCathedral Canon Herbert Waddams told the con-gregation that Christians could not behave likePontius Pilate over the Middle East and that thequestion of Jerusalem was one «on which they oughtto have some views». Reminding them that Israel'sinsistence on building badly designed and badlysited housing in Jerusalem had been universallycondemned, both by international authority and byindependent experts inside and outside Israel, hesaid of this insistence: «It is plainly an act whichflies in the face of legal, moral and political princi-ples and must be condemned for this reasons.

Surely the time has now come for an interna-tional initiative to give practical effect to this uni-versal sense of outrage. The Security Council hasasked the Secretary General of the United Nations

to report within 60 days on the implementation ofthe Council's latest resolution on Jerusalem. If theIsraelis maintain their defiance of the entire inter-national community and whatever may be thereactions of the other governments which havesupported this resolution, we suggest that our ownGovernment should consider what unilateral actionwould be appropriate. It is essential that properrestraint be placed on the 'freedom of action of theIsraeli Government in a matter that concernseveryone of us.

We appeal, especially, to British Jews—whomthe Israeli Government by claiming to act in thename of the Jewish people seeks to associate withits policies — to do what they can to bring theIsraelis to a better understanding of their responsi-bilities towards the Holy City and towards theirfellow Jews elsewhere.

Let them remind Mrs. Meir and her colleaguesof the words of Ahad Ha'am who spoke in thehumane tradition of Jewish thought when heobserved that: «A mistake that succeeds remains amistake». •

89

DOCUMENTS

Concern over Israel's measures to Judaize Jerusalemhas been widespread in Moslem and Christian circles.Elsewhere in this issue we have published «A Voice ofProtests expressing the attitude of the Anglican Church tothese measures. Below we give the full text of the«Declaration» of the First Islamic Summit Conference,which was held in Rabat from 22-25 September and whichexpressed Moslem sentiment regarding the Jerusalem issueand warned of the «Israeli threat to the Sacred Shrines ofIslam in Jerusalem.*

DECLARATION OF THE RABAT ISLAMICSUMMIT CONFERENCE

The Heads of States and Governments and Rep-resentatives of the Kingdom of Afghanistan, Al-gerian Democratic and Popular Republic, Republicof Chad, Republic of Guinea, Republic of Indonesia,

90

Empire of Iran, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,Kingdom of Morocco, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,State of Kuwait, Republic of Lebanon, Arab Repu-blic of Libya, Malaysia, Republic of Mali, IslamicRepublic of Mauritania, Republic of Niger, Republicof Senegal, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Republicof Somalia, Popular Republic of Southern Yemen,Democratic Republic of Sudan, Republic of Tunisia,Republic of Turkey, United Arab Republic, theYemen Arab Republic and of the Moslem Commu-nity of India, met at the First Islamic Summit Con-ference held in Rabat from 9 to 12 Rajab 1389 (22 to25 September 1969).

Representatives of the Palestinian LiberationOrganization attending as observers.

Convinced that their common creed constitutesa powerful factor bringing their peoples closertogether and fostering understanding between them,

Resolved to preserve the spiritual, moral andsocio-economic values of Islam which remain one ofthe essential factors for the achievement of progressby mankind,

They affirm their unshakable faith in the pre-cepts of Islam which proclaim the equality of rightsamong all men,

They reaffirm their adherence to the Charterof the United Nations and fundamental HumanRights, the purpose and principle of which are to

91

establish a basis for fruitful cooperation among all

peoples,Determined to strengthen the fraternal and

spiritual bonds existing between their peoples andto safeguard their freedom and the heritage of theircommon civilization founded in particular upon theprinciples of justice, tolerance and non-discrimina-

tion,Anxious to> promote everywhere welfare, prog-

ress and freedom,Resolved to unite their efforts for the preserva-

tion of world peace and security,

To these endshereby declare

Their Governments shall consult together witha view to promoting between themselves a closecooperation and mutual assistance in the economic,scientific, cultural and spiritual fields, inspired bythe immortal teachings of Islam,

Their Governments undertake to settle bypeaceful means any dispute which may arise bet-ween them in such a manner as to contribute to thestrengthening of international peace and security,in accordance with the aims and principles of theCharter of the United Nations.

Having considered the act o'f arson in the HolyAl-Aqsa Mosque, and the situation in the MiddleEast, the Heads of States and Governments andRepresentatives hereby declare:

92

The grievous event of 21 August 1969 whichcaused extensive damage by arson to the SacredAl-Aqsa Mosque, has plunged over six hundredmillion followers of Islam throughout the world into

the deepest anguish.

This sacrilege against one of Humanity's mostvenerated shrines and the acts of destruction andprofanation of the Holy Places which have takenplace under the military occupation by Israel of AlQuds — the Holy City of Jerusalem, sacred to thefollowers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, haveexacerbated tensions in the Middle East and arousedindignation among peoples throughout the world.

The Heads of States and Governments and Rep-resentatives declare that the continued threat to theSacred Shrines of Islam in Jerusalem is the resultof the occupation of this City by the Israeli forces.The preservation of their sacred character andunimpeded access to them require that the Holy Cityshould be restored its status, previous to June 1967.

They therefore declare that their Governmentsand peoples are firmly determined to reject anysolution of the problem of Palestine which woulddeny Jerusalem the status it had before June 1967.

They urge all Governments particularly thoseof France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,the United Kingdom and the United States ofAmerica to take into account the deep attachmentof the followers of Islam to Jerusalem and the

93

solemn resolve of their Governments to strive forits liberation.

The continued military occupation of Arabterritories by Israel since June 1967, the refusal byIsrael to pay the slightest heed to the calls by theSecurity Council and the General Assembly of theUnited Nations to rescind the measures purportingto annex the Holy City of Jerusalem to Israel, havecaused their peoples and their Governments themost profound concern.

Having considered this grave situation, the Headsof States and Governments and Representativesurgently and earnestly appeal to all members of theinternational community, and more particularly tothe great Powers which have a special responsibilityto maintain international peace, to intensify theircollective and individual efforts to secure the speedywithdrawal of Israeli military forces from all theterritories occupied as a result of the war of June1967, in accordance with the established principleof the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory bymilitary conquest.

Moved by the tragedy of Palestine, they affirmtheir full support to the Palestinian people for therestitution of their rights which were usurped andin their strugle for national liberation.

They reaffirm their adherence to the principleof peace, but peace with honor and justice. •

94

RESISTANCESUBSCRIPTION COUPON

Enclosed please find cheque for

covering a year's subscription

to RESISTANCE (12 issues)

Name

Address

City Country

Mail to :RESISTANCE (P.L.A.)P. O. Box 3577

Please send cheques through Syrian Commercial

Bank, Branch 3 (Account No. 18268).

Damascus .-Syria

Rates S 7.00, £ 3.09, L.S. 25.00

ISSUED BY : Directorate of Moral Guidance,Palestine Liberation Army,Damascus ( Syria ).

THE GOOD EARTH

The principle involved in the Palestine questionis the right of every people to the land on Whichthey live and on which their forefathers have livedfor long centuries-to the land which has been dyedred with their blood, and with whose soil the sweatof their brow has been mixed. It is the right toutilize the land's resources and to establish thereinany political, social or cultural system which theychoose...».

See Inside cover