ARAB PALE

R E S I S T A N C EMONTHLY MAGAZINE

VOLUME IV-No.1 JANUARY 1972

PALESTINE LIBERATION ARMY- PEOPLE S LIBERATION FORCES

Arab PalestinianR E S I S T A N C E

Volume IV - No. 1 JANUARY 1972

CONTENTS

From the record 3

Editorial 4

Political Scene By: M. T. Bujairami 6

Oriental Jews By: Odeh Abu Rdeneh 16

Resistance Operations 25

The Palestine Revolution By: Khaled Fahoum 30

U.S. Policy in the Middle East

By: E. Dimitriyev and V. Alexeyev 39

Palestine Question in world press 50

Review of events 54

As the night dies (Poem) By: Hanna Farha 58

Zionist and colonization in Palestine

By: Khalid Kishtainy 64

Book Reviews 82

Documents 91

•

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

P r i c e p e r c o p y

S y r i a n p i a s t e r s 1 0 0

$ 0.50

• FROM THE RECORD

y r i a . E d i t o r : M. K H I) RI

In 1819, Achad Ha'am, the prominent Zionistwriter, said of the Jewish settlers in Palestine:

«Serfs they were in the lands of the Diasporaand suddenly they find themselves in freedom. Thischange has awakened in them an inclination to des-potism. They treat the Arabs with hostility andenmity, deprive them of their rights, offend themwithout cause, and even boast of these deeds; andnobody among us opposes this despicable and dan-

gerous inclination)).

• ;

ip^^w

The Nixon administration has announced thatit has been decided to resume supplying Israel withPhantom planes. The pretext given for the decisionis that Soviet arms shipments to the Arab countriesmight disturb the «balance of power» in the MiddleEast and that the United States is committed tomaintaining this balance.

The decision was especially surprising in viewof the recent resolution of the UN General Assembly,adopted in mid-December, which expressed appre-ciation for Egypt's positive attitude to AmbassadorJarring's peace initiative, and called on Israel towithdraw from the occupied Arab territories and torespond favourably to the peace initiative of the UNmediator. . •

The General Assembly resolution, which wasapproved by 79 votes to 7 with 36 abstentions, pro-vided yet another proof of Israel's growing isolationin the international field. This isolation, however,and Israel's continued defiance of the world commu-nity seems to be of little concern to the UnitedStates government.

The US decision to supply with offensiveweapons the party branded by the United Nations

/i

as the defiant aggressor may sound odd andunexpected. But a careful study of the relationsbetween Israel and the United States, since theestablishment of the Zionist state and to the presentday would show that the American government hasconsistently helped Israel, notwithstanding the factthat Israel has insistently followed a policy ofexpansion and aggression.

To cover up Israel's role as the chief agent ofworld imperialism in the Middle East and to serveAmerica's substantial oil interests in the Arabcountries, U. S. leaders sometimes talk of an Ameri-can «even-handed» policy in the Arab-Israeli conflictand a {(balance of power» in the Middle East region.

The U.S. decision to resume supplying Israelwith Phantom planes confirms the truth of the Arabcontention that the policies of Israel and Americaare coordinated and identical and that all talk ofAmerican «neutrality» and 'balance of power' in theMiddle East region, is mere eye-wash. •

by: M. T. Bujairami

What are the prospects of the situation in the MiddleEast in 1972? This is an important question, but the answeris in no way easy to find.

Everything indicates that the area is rapidlyheading towards war, with the serious possibilitythat the dimensions and repercussions of this warmay get out of control as a series of violent explo-sions. It is obvious, however, that nobody can putthe blame on the Arabs for the mounting tension in,and continuous deterioration of, the Middle Eastsituation.

Israel is as stubborn as ever in her attitude;and the whole world has now come to realize herexpansionist policies that are fully backed by theUnited States of America. In fact the United States

can now be considered a full partner in the occupa-tion of Arab territories because it is the only countryin the world which is providing Israel with themeans with which to tighten the Israeli grip on theseterritories.

Time and again the international communityhas condemned Israel's failure to comply withnumerous U.N. resolutions; time and again the worldhas reaffirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisitionof territories by force. Moreover, even Americaherself, as Israel's chief ally, has told the Egyptiansthat she cannot ask them for more concessions, thusacknowledging the justice of the Arab stand.

Yet, instead of exerting some form of pressureon Israel to take a more reasonable or moderateattitude, America has shown itself deplorablyvulnerable to a carefully-timed and well-designedcampaign of Israeli-Zionist pressure. The briefperiod in which America seemed to be following anindependent policy or an «even-handed» one, to-wards the Middle East has now come to an abruptend. Thus Uncle Sam has swung back to the old,

' I I I

traditional attitude of blind and biased support forIsrael.

• American policy, in fact, is likely to becomeeven more sensitively responsive to forms of Zionistpressure through all channels of Zionist influence,since 1972 is a year of presidential elections in theUnited States. Such occasions have almost invariablybeen seized by presidential candidates to compete inpledging more and more American commitments togive Israel whatever the Israeli leaders may ask for.If John Lindsay becomes a candidate, for example,it is almost certain that he will go as far as givingIsrael a «carte blanches.

Meanwhile, there have been reports, or ratherspeculations, of the possibility of reviving the Jar-ring mission. As usual, Israel gave vague hints thatshe may change her position and comply withAmerican requests in this respect. But the Arabs

8

have learnt through previous, bitter experience, thatthis means nothing at all.

In January 1911, Israel expressed a desire toresume contacts with Dr. Jarring in the very lastweek before his report was due to be submitted toUN Secretary-General U Thant in early February,1971. That resumption of the Jarring mission waseventually deadlocked by Israel, because whereasEgypt gave a positive reply to Jarring's questions,Israel gave an evasive reply.

At present Israel and America want to playthe same game again. After the failure of all pre-vious initiatives, both inside and outside the U.N.,for any kind of peaceful settlement or even aninterim agreement for the re-opening of the SuezCanal, the American Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers,contacted both the Egyptian and the Israeli foreignministers to tell them that America would place her

«good offices» at the disposal of the concerned par-ties to find a way out of the deadlock.

To understand the «sincerity» of this «generous»American offer, one has to notice that while thisoffer was being made, the American congress passeda resolution to give Israel a «loan» of $350 millionto buy offensive arms, and sophisticated, militaryequipment. At the very same time, American pilotsof fighter-jets were being despatched to Israel.

That was not the first time America exerciseda double-faced policy of preaching something andpracticing another. Yet, Uncle Sam continues to«advise» the Arabs to exercise self-restraint and totrust the White House!

In fact, America and her NATO allies seem tobe currently busy contriving another large-scale plotagainst the Arab Nation; and it seems also that

10

Israel has a significant role in America's globalstrategy. In this respect, 'it seems that America is,in one way or another, reviving the policies of thelate John Foster Dulles.

The sudden escalation of the war in South EastAsia just before Nixon's forthcoming visit to Pekingand Moscow may be taken as one aspect of thisstrategy. Also the brutal air raids on North Vietnamand the resumption of hostilities in Korea under thepretext of taking precautions against the possibilityof a so-called invasion from North Korea.

As far as the Middle East is concerned, thestrategy of America and her allies can be summa-rized as follows:

Since the loss of NATO bases in Malta seemsimminent and almost inevitable, the Americans andtheir allies are seeking some alternatives. Several

11

prospects are being- probed in this respect. Thus theUnited States, in addition to her sixth fleet in theMediterranean, is trying to convince her NATOallies to have another NATO fleet there, and wantsBritain, Italy, Greece and perhaps Turkey to contri-bute to the formation of such a fleet under the pretextof counter-balancing1 Soviet maritime power in theMediterranean.

Moreover, America seems to consider it essen-tial to continue, and even to enhance, her supportof Israel—as another way of compensating for theloss of the strategically important position of Malta.It seems also that Iran has her pre-designated rolein this general strategy. In other words, America andher NATO allies want to open yet another frontagainst the Arab Nation at the present critical timewhen the possibilities of another conflagration in theMiddle East seem to be constantly increasing.

12

Apart from Israel, Iran is the only country inthe world that has been given American Phantomplanes. Furthermore, Iran has obtained from Britainthe largest hovercraft fleet that any single countryin the world possesses. To this may be added thefact that it is Iranian oil that is keeping the Israelipipe-line in business between Eilat on the Gulf ofAqaba (the Red Sea) and Askalan on the Mediter-ranean and the other fact that Britain saw fit to givethree Arab islands to Iran at the present crucialstage of the Middle East conflict.

NATO seems to be also interested in openingfronts against the Arabs. On such potential frontrelates to the encouragement, enhancement and evenmaterial support currently being given to the insur-rection in Southern Sudan in order to prevent theSudan from joining the State of the Federation ofArab Republics which now includes Egypt, Syria

13

and Libya. The West may find it convenient to itsaims to develop this insurrection into a civil war inorder to prevent the iSudan from assisting Egypt incase of war flaring up between Egypt and Israel. Itshould be noted in this connection that Uganda'sGeneral Eidi Amin received his military training inIsrael, and his regime may thus be used to help theSudanese rebels in the south in collaboration withIsrael. NATO may even think of using the bases inCyprus and Ethiopia to give military assistance toIsrael in case of a big conflagration, although Israel'slittle Hitlers continue to boast that they need no-body's assistance to defeat «all the Arabs anytime»!

Meanwhile, Israel continues to behave as if shewere staying in the occupied Arab territoriesforever. More Arab families are being uprootedfrom their tented camps and thrown into the desertof Sinai, or just deported across the river Jordan.More Israeli colonies and fortifications are beingconstructed at a very speedy rate. Some suchcolonies are being currently built in the Nablus area.More and more lands are being confiscated fromtheir rightful Arab owners to make room for Jewish

14

immigrants imported from everywhere. Detention,arbitrary internment, brutal torture, persecution andconcentration camps have become matters of every-day life for the Arab inhabitants of the occupiedterritories.

But notwithstanding all this, and in spite ofthe series of massacres perpetrated against thePalestinians in Jordan last year and the year before,the Palestinians continue to put up a staunch resis-tance not only in Gaza, in south Palestine, but alsoin upper Galilee in the north. They have even foughta battle fifty miles deep inside Palestine, in a placeto the north of Haifa, last month.

The Arabs have given every chance for apeaceful settlement to succeed. They have beenpatient and have exercised self-restraint for a verylong time. Nobody in the world can deny them theright to regain their land. In their struggle to regaintheir inalienable rights, they are not only fightingfor their survival and doing their duty towards theircaptured homeland, but they are also struggling toimplement the will of the international commu-nity — the will that has been expressed throughnumerous U.N. resolutions. •

:

O R I E N T A L J E W S

by: Often Abu Rdeneh

Demonstrations in March, April and May of last yearin Israel by the Black Panthers are a sharp and timelyreminder that the «Jewish State» does not solve the «JewishProblem». The Black Panthers are Jews of Oriental originwho are demonstrating, not only against their poverty perse, but against what they, as non-European Jews, considerracial discrimination.

Racial discrimination against Oriental Jews is clearlyillustrated by these statistics:

EDUCATION

Eighty percent of Jewish youth in Israel,between the ages of 14 and 17, who are not in school,come from Israeli Jewish families originating inArab countries. (This information was contained inan announcement made by the Israeli Ministry ofEducation and Culture in April 1971)1.

1 — The Jerusalem Post (Weekly Overseas Edition),No. 5. 47. April 27, 1971 Page 5.

16

Presently, sixty percent of those childrenentering compulsory primary schools are Orientals.At the secondary school level, the percentage dropsto twenty-five percent. The lowest percentage is atthe decisive univeristy level-a mere ten percent^.Panther leader, Reuven Abergil explained «in ourschools there are teachers with no qualifications,teaching in buildings that are falling apart. In BeitHakerem schools, the children have no laboratories»3.

JOBSThe following statistics apply to the middle

sixties:Only 7 percent of the scientific and technical

workers are Oriental Jews4, while two thirds of theunskilled Labor force is Oriental. The 120 memberKnesset had sixteen Orientals before 1965 and only21 afterS. There is but one Oriental Jew (PoliceMinister Sholmo Hillel) in the 18 .member Israeli

CabinetG.

2 — The New York Times (New York), May 27, 1971,

Page 8.3 — The Jewish Post and Opinion (New York), April 2,

1971.4 — Ha'aretz, June 4, 1971.5 — The New Left Review (London), No. 65, January-

February, 1971, Page 6.6 — The Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1971.

Page A5.

17

Mordechai Ben Porat, an Oriental, and a dele-gate to the Israeli Labor Party Convention (April,1971) quoted the following:

«Only 2.9 percent of the positions on the threetop grades of civil service are held by Orientals, andof the two hundred executives of government andpublic companies only eight or nine are from Orientalcommunities))?.

INCOME

of westernThe income gap between Israelis 01 westernorigin and Israelis of Asiatic and African origin haswidened, Oriental Jews becoming relatively poorerand European Jews becoming relatively richer.Following are comparisons between the incomes ofthe upper (European) and lower (Oriental) fifths ofthe Israeli population: «The lowest fifth received 7percent of the total income in 1954, 5 percent in 1963and 4.7 percent in 1968. During that span the shareof the top fifth rose from 38 percent to 42.7 per-cent»8.

The above statistics become more significantwhen it is recalled that Oriental Jews account forsome 60% of the Israeli population. In Israel,however, numbers do not seem to matter. Accordingto Professor Talmon of the Hebrew University,

7 — New Middle East (London), No. 32, May 1971 Page 9.8 — Ha'aretz, June 4, 1971.

18

Israel is, «a direct continuation of the culture andsociety of the Jews of Eastern Europe»9, despite thefact that these same European Jews are the minorityin Israel.

HOUSING

Histadrut Secretary-General, Itzhak Ben-Aharon,is one of the few concerned voices on the vitalhousing issue.

«If there is money for security and money fornew immigrants, there ought to be enough moneyfor a working man to live as human being inIsraeblO.

There is a depressing lack of urgency about theplight of Oriental Jews. On all sides—from FinanceMinister, Pinhas Sapir, Housing Minister, Sharef,Absorption Minister, Nathan Peled—the response isthe same: ^Security and immigration come first.Everything else must wait»ll.

One of the strongest gripes of Oriental Jews isthat new immigrants from the «United States andthe Soviet Union are getting public housing imme-diately, while there is none for Moroccans who havelived in these slums for years»12. Israeli officials

9 — New Middle East (London),No. 33, June 1971 Page 36.

10 — American Examiner Jewish Week (New York), June

3, 1971, Page 3.

11 — Ibid.12 — Look (New York), June 15, 1971, Page 26.

19

Ml

estimate that Oriental Jews «accourit for more than70 percent of those living in substandard hou-sing...»13.

«Look at the Russian Jews—they come here andget good new apartments», said one garage worker inKatamon, a Jerusalem suburb. «I have been waitinghere for 20 years hoping for better living space»14.

«How can a family of eight living in two roomscontain themselves when they see new apartmentsbeing built for others?)) asks Mrs, ShoshannaAlmoslino, Chairman of the parliamentary laborcommittee, «the situation is explosive)) 15.

This policy of discrimination against OrientalJews was and is consciously pursued. In the words ofNewsweek, «in order to attract Jews from tech-nologically advanced nations, Israel provided hou-sing for immigrants from the West. As a result theplight of the... 'Oriental Jews' from North Africaand Arab countries... was pushed to the bottom ofa long list of priorities»16.

•' • ~ ' " ~ • ~

13 — Newsweek (New York), April 19, 1971, Page 60.

14 — The New York Times (New York), May 24, 1971,Page 8.

15 — Newsweek (New York), April 19, 1971, Page 60.

16 — Newsweek (New York), April 19, 1971, Page 60.

20

A tense and angry meeting between PrimeMinister Golda Meir and «five serious» HebrewUniversity students (four of the students were ofOriental origin) provoked this comment on the partof the students, «she displayed no sensitivity at allto the problems of Oriental Jews»17.

MAY RIOT

Already, explosions are occuring. On May 18th(1971) Jerusalem witnessed the worst riots in recentIsraeli history. Dark-skinned Jews marched off to-ward the business section of Jerusalem, blockingBen Yehuda street and shouting «Medinah mish-tarah!» «Police state !»18.

Shortly, Ben Yehuda Street was transformed intoa battlefield. Demonstrators hurled stones, bottlesand Molotov cocktails at the helmeted police. «Andin return the police responded with unprecendentedviolence, clubbing demonstrators and sympathizersover their heads and backs. Appalled bystanderstried to drag the enraged policemen away frombleeding youths cringing on the ground»19.

When the riot ended five hours later, morethan 100 demonstrators had been arrested.

17 —• The Jerusalem Post Weekly (Jerusalem), May 18,

1971, Page 15.

18 — Newsweek (New York), May 31, 1971, Page 33.

19 — Ibid.

21

And in the bleak slum areas of Jerusalem wherethe Black Panthers live there was talk of «blood forblood»20.

CONCLUSION

The potentially dangerous nature of the situ-ation led Prime Minister Golda Meir to say that,«unless Israel tackles her social problems withdetermination, there is a danger of war between the'haves and the have-nots' (a euphemism for Euro-pean and Oriental Jews) which could be much morefrightening in its implications than any war withIsrael's external enemies»21.

Following the recent riots in Jerusalem, one oithe leaders of the Black Panthers declared thatthere are «3,000 registered Black Panthers»22 inIsrael and that support is increasing. A prominentPanther supporter is Elie Eliachar, a retired politicianof Oriental origin. I am all for what these youngpeople are doing—for too long we Oriental Jewshave lived for promises that never materialized»23..

20 — Ibid.

21 — The Cleveland Jewish News (Cleveland), April 16,1971, Page 14.

22 — New Middle Last (London), No. 32, May 1971,Page 20.

23 — The New York Times (New York), May 24, 1971Page 8.

22

•

The privileged status of European Jews hasbeen preserved, if indirectly, by the Middle Eastconflict. As possibilities for a peaceful settlementwith the Arab States improve, Oriental Jews aredemanding the same rights as Western Jews, theresult of which is acute internal strife. Accordingto Mr. Eliachar, «If we ever get peace in the MiddleEast, we will have civil war at home»24.

All of which reveals that in Israel «the milk isjust a little sour and the honey slightly bitter»25.

24 — Ibid.

25 — American Examine];-Jewish Week

June 3, 1971, Page 3.

((New York),

23

One Israeli educator, Yehuda Nimni, is more ex-plicit in his criticism. The Black Panther problemconfirms, he says, «not only the failure of the State(Israel) but also the failure of the Zionist move-ment»26.

It must be kept in mind, however, that the riseof the Panthers does not indicate their willingnessto join forces with the Arabs in their struggleagainst Zionism. On the contrary, it appears thatthe Panthers are only interested in getting a sliceof the Zionist pie in Israel.

Oriental Jews are surely aware that the Arabsunder Israel's occupation are being exploited to a fargreater degree than they are, yet no Panther hasexpressed his solidarity with the oppressed andexploited Arabs. Rather, Oriental Jews resent beingidentified by the European Jew as «Arabs blacksand natives of any kind, who are considered as'inferior' by these settlers (European Jews)»27. •

26 — Tadmit Newsletter (Tel Aviv/Vol. 1 No. 24. June 1,1971, Page 2.

27 — TJie New Left Review (London), No. 65, January-February, 1971, Page 6.

24

•

'•

rrs(December 1971)

UesistanceJj Operat ions

.

1' ;

.

On December 1, a Palestinian commando unit,operating in the occupied Gaza Strip, clashed withan enemy patrol at the refugee camp of El Bureijnear Gaza town, inflicting heavy losses on theZionist patrol.

On December 2, a Palestinian commando unitlaunched a rocket attack, on the Israeli port ofEilath, scoring direct hits on enemy installations.The enemy was seen evacuating a number of casual-ties sustained as a result of the attack.

On December 3, a Palestinian commando groupshelled the residence of the Zionist intelligenceofficer Shlomo Haddad, at Beit Zion, in theNathanya region. The intelligence officer was killedas a result of the attack.

On December 5, Palestinian commando fightersclashed with the enemy patrols in a violent battle

25

in the Arrabat El Bitouf region, in Upper Galilee,inflicting heavy losses on the Zionist soldiers.

On December 12, a commando detachmentattacked an Israeli military vehicle, patrolling themain road leading to Beersheba with hand grenadesand machine-guns, killing the driver and woundingan Israeli soldier. The vehicle was set on fire anddestroyed.

On December 16, a commando unit clashedwith an Israeli patrol in Gaza city, using in thefight which ensued hand-grenades and light wea-pons. The enemy suffered heavy losses.

On December 17, a commando unit clashedwith an Israeli patrol in a face-to-face battle, usingmachine-guns and hand-grenades. Most of the enemypatrol were killed or wounded.

On December 17, Palestinian commandos plan-ted a number of mines on an enemy military roadin Upper Galilee. One of the mines went off underan, enemy vehicle,, destroying it and killing, orwounding, its occupants.

On December 17, a group of commandos,attacked an Israeli patrol at the Jebaliya refugeecamp, in .the Gaza Strip, using hand-grenades andmachine-guns. The enemy admitted that one soldierwas killed and two others wounded. -

On December 18, a Palestinian freedom fighterplaced ! highly explosive charges at an enemy mili-

26

tary barrack at the Yiftah settlement, in UpperGalilee. The charges exploded, destroying thebarrack and killing or wounding many of its

occupants.

On December 19, a commando unit planted amine under the railway line between Jerusalem andTel Aviv, near Kilometer 13. The mine went offunder the train, derailing it and causing severalcasualties. One of the coaches was damaged.

On December 20, a commando unit shelledQiryat Shemonah settlement with heavy rockets.Rescue squads were rushed to the scene to evacuate

casualties.

On December 23, a Palestinian commando unitrocketed enemy military vehicles and machine-gunned the Ferdawi Camp in the Golan Heights,scoring direct hits on enemy targets, damaging oneenemy vehicle and causing heavy losses and casual-ties among enemy forces.

On December 25, a commando unit launched asurprise attack against enemy camps in the Fishkolregion, using machine-guns and rockets in theattack, which resulted in destroying one of theenemy barracks, and in killing or wounding anumber of enemy soldiers.

On December 25, a commando unit attacked anenemy military vehicle at the Rimth Heights at thefoot of Mount Hermon. The unit used machine-gunsand rockets in the attack, which resulted in killing

27

HH

or wounding a number of enemy soldiers and indestroying the vehicle.

On December 25, a commando unit, usingrockets and other weapons, attacked enemy troopconcentrations in the Brekhtah region, destroying anenemy armoured troop transport car. The enemywas seen evacuating casualties by a helicopter. Anenemy half-tracked vehicle, an armoured trooptransport and a barrack were destroyed. Not lessthan 15 enemy soldiers were killed or wounded.On December 25, a Palestinian freedom fighterhurled a hand-grenade at an enemy military vehiclein Gaza city, damaging it and killing or woundingits occupants.

; > ; ; K I J > • = ) ! ' • ; ,;.v T.M. ;:»fO;^['l-. ' • . - j « ; . : i . - ••„

'"P. ^;4 ' ' Hi"' l :vr,h *

?/

28

On December 26, a Palestinian commando unitshelled enemy forces at the Ruwaisah Camp, in theGolan Heights, using rockets and machine-guns inthe attack, which resulted in the destruction of anenemy barrack.

On December 26, a commando unit launched asurprise attack against enemy concentrations andmilitary vehicles in the Birket el Naggar, Ras elAssi and El Saddan regions in the Golan Heights,using rockets and machine-guns. An enemy militaryvehicle was set on fire, a barrack was destroyed andnot less than 12 soldiers were killed or wounded.

On December 26, a commando unit laid anambush to enemy patrols, on the Salha and KafrBurim road, destroying an enemy military vehicle.

On December 26, a commando unit shelledenemy forces stationed at the Ruweisat el Alamcamp, in the Golan Heights, using rockets andmachine-guns. An enemy barrack was destroyed.

On December 27, a commando unit clashedwith enemy troops in the Salha region, in upperGalilee, and killed or wounded several enemysoldiers.

On December 27, an enemy military spokes-man admitted that Palestinian commandos hadattacked an Israeli patrol near Tiberias and thattwo Israeli soldiers had been wounded.

On December 27, Palestinian commandos blewup a water pipe in the Gaza Strip, cutting watersupplies from enemy settlements. H

29

Khaled Fahoum

THE PALESTINEREVOLUTION

.

•The following article by Khaled Fahoum, Chairman

of the Palestine National Council, is based on an addressdelivered by the author of the article at the Fifth Con-ference of the Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organization,which was held in Cairo, 10-13 January, 1972.

When the Zionists announced, at the BasleCongress of 1897, their plans for the acquisition ofthe Arab country of Palestine and based their claimto it on historical and religious association, fewpeople in the West sought to discover the truthregarding Jewish association with Palestine: itsshort duration, the small part of Palestine which hadbeen controlled by the Jews and the irrelevance ofhistorical and religious association to claims regar-ding right of possession to a country.

30

Ilii

Again when in 1917, the British BalfourDeclaration promised the Jews a «National Home»in Palestine, few people outside the Arab homelandquestioned the motives and justice of a promisewhich was given before British troops had occupiedPalestine and at a time when the Arabs constituted92 percent of the population of the country.

When a few years later the British occupiedPalestine and were given a mandate to govern thecountry, an unholy alliance between British im-perialism and the Zionists opened the country tosuccessive waves of Zionist invaders. Moreover, theBritish mandatory government placed the countryunder political, economic and social conditionsdesigned tc enable the Zionist Jews to colonizePalestine.

As a result of this policy which was pursuedfor well over 25 years of British mandatory rule,Israel was established in 1948 and the majority ofthe Arab population of Palestine were driven out ofthe country by the Zionist invaders. The Zionistinvasion and the establishment of Israel represent aclear example of settler colonialism achievedthrough the combined efforts of imperialism andworld Zionism.

Nevertheless one often hears questions like thefollowing: Why do the Palestinian refugees insist onreturning to their homeland? Why don't the Arabstates absorb the refugees in their land? Why do

31

.

..

.

.

. .•

•

.' .

.

•

•

the Arab states refuse to recognise Israel? Why dothe Arabs refuse to negotiate with Israel for peace?

The falseness of Israeli claims that they desirepeace is revealed by the words and deeds of Israelileaders. Israel's occupation of Palestine and parts ofthe neighbouring Arab states, her refusal to with-draw from the occupied Arab territories or toimplement UN resolutions regarding Palestine andher attempts to foil all peaceful efforts exertedduring the past five years can only be explained asmotivated by Israeli expansionism.

Zionism, in fact, is a colonialist movementorganically linked with imperialism and diametri-cally opposed to all progressive and national libera-

32

tion movements throughout the world; while Israelconstitutes a human and geographical base of worldimperialism, a springboard in the very heart of theArab world designed by the imperialists to preventthe Arab people from realising their aspirations —freedom, unity and progress. Therefore, can thePalestinians be blamed for having resorted to theforce of arms to recover their land and legitimaterights? Lenin spoke of just wars; and our war is ajust one. Gamal Abdel Nasser, our great leader, wasright when he said: «What was taken by force canbe restored only through forces.

The Arab people of Palestine have continuouslystruggled against Zionism and Imperialism from

33

1917 until 1948. They have resumed their armedstruggle since 1965. Our people are still waging aviolent war against the forces of Israeli occupationand of imperialism.

Our people's armed struggle will continueuntil it achieves its objectives. Our people have theright to struggle, using all possible means, in orderto recover their land and so that they may live onit peacefully like any other people in the world. Thestruggle for national liberation and againstimperialism and its base — Israel is a legiti-mate war of liberation. World peace can never beachieved if peoples were to retreat before the forcesof tyranny and oppression.

We cannot stand still while we face themanoeuvers of the Zionist movement and of Israel,which aim at foiling all attempts to establish peaceand security not only in the Middle East but in everycorner of the world. The liquidation of the Zionistmovement would save the Jews from imperialismand exploitation. It is necessary for the realisationof a permanent peace which could only come aboutthrough the formation of a democratic state inPalestine.

This state is to include both Arabs and Jews.They will work and live without any discrimination,exploitation or persecution. The Palestinian Arabsare fighting for the day when a new Palestine willbe created, the Palestine of tomorrow. Our revolu-tion extends a friendly hand to all those wishing to

34

live in a democratic and tolerant Palestine, free ofall forms of discrimination based on race, colour or

religion-We are fully aware of the long road that lies

before us. We know that the realisation of this aimis not easy.

A foreign power is attempting to suppress ourstruggle with the help of an Arab reactionary force.The reactionary regime in Jordan, in collusion withthe United States, has launched a number of mur-derous campaigns against our freedom fighters inJordan. It continues to launch such campaigns witha view to liquidating our revolution and changingthe Palestine conflict into an internal Arab conflict—a policy identical with the American plan for the«Vietnamization» of the war in Indo-China.

Despite the brutality of the reactionary regimein Jordan, we agreed to negotiate and left forJeddah. We accepted the Egyptian-Saudi mediationto implement the two agreements of Cairo andAmman with Jordan, for no other reason than ourbelief in the unity of the Jordanian and Palestinianpeoples.

We reject the proposed fragmentary Palestinianstate to be set up on part of Palestine's soil. Suchstate would be a mere tool in the hands of Zionismand imperialism. We refuse to deal with the aggres-sor; and all plans initiated by him to establish somesort of self-government for the inhabitants of theoccupied territories are mere deception and a camou-

35

flage, intended to cover up Israel's aggression andits continued occupation of our land.

Israel's recent announcement that the occupa-tion authorities plan to hold municipal elections inthe towns of the West Bank aims at perpetuatingthe Zionist occupation of Arab lands and at giving itsome form of legitimization. It also aims at pavingthe way for establishing a Palestinian State thatwould be a virtual Israeli colony.

By continuing to change the status of Jeru-salem and to evacuate the Arab inhabitants of Gazaand to blow up their houses, and by continuing toestablish new Zionist settlements in the occupiedterritory, Israel is challenging international laws andconventions and the authority of the United Nations.

The Palestinian Revolution does not stand alonein the present struggle; it is an integral part of theArab Liberation Movement and of the World Libera-tion Movement. In spite of the difficulties we face,we are optimistic because all the Arab and worldliberation forces stand by us. The aggressions we aresubjected to are only a reaction to the growth of ourrevolution and the awareness of our people. Oarstruggle against the Zionist aggression is a contribu-tion to the world struggle against imperialism andracial discrimination.

The Palestinian resistance movement, in spiteof the brutality of the Zionist, imperialist andreactionary offensive, continues to fight, to pursuethe political struggle and to strengthen its ties withthe sons of Palestine, especially in the occupied

36

territories. After the 1967 war Palestinian identityhas become a reality and a force not to be under-estimated in the Middle East. The Palestinian peopletoday are an armed and a fighting people, not anation of neglected refugees as before.

Our Arab Palestinian people look to all peoplesand to all liberation movements of the world tostand by them and to support the following four

points:(1) Strengthening the Palestinian Resistance

by all possible means is the duty of all peace andfreedom-loving countries and peoples. The Pales-tinian Revolution is an indivisible part of the Araband of the world liberation movements.

(2) No one may speak for Palestine or takedecisions regarding its fate in the absence of thePalestinian people and their legitimate representa-tives.

(3) The right of the Palestinian people toreturn to their homeland and their right to self-determination in accordance with the U.N. Charter,should be recognized.

(4) The Palestine Liberation Organization(P.L.O.) represented by the Palestine NationalCouncil and the P.L.O. Executive Committee is thesole representative organization of the Arab peopleof Palestine. ™

38

US POLICYIN THE M I D D L E E AST •

• •by: E. Dimitriyev and V. Alexeyev

The following exposition of the duplicity of US policyin the Middle East and its subservience to Israel and worldZionism is based on a more comprehensive treatment ofthe subject, which appeared in the November-1971 issue ofthe Soviet Magazine «International Affairs».

•

B

•• PEACEMAKER DISGUISE

US PROPAGANDA has tried hard to convinceworld opinion that Washington's Middle East policyis «flexible» and «sensibly pragmatics, and that anyaccusation of a one-sided, overtly pro-Israeli ap-proach to the Arab-Israeli conflict against the presentAdministration is «groundless», for the USA's mainobjective is to establish peace and tranquillity inthe Middle East. The US press, radio and television

39

have gone all out to present the USA as a peace-maker and to persuade the Arab countries that theycannot secure the return of the Israeli-occupiedterritories without US assistance.

The loud advertising campaign over the«fresh» US initiatives and ((constructive proposals))is in fact designed to conceal the inability of theRepublican Administration to break the viciouscircle, which results from the USA's patent pro-Israeli stand throughout the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In a sense, the key to realising the essence ofWashington's Middle East policy lies in the answerto the question of why the United States, whichvirtually initiated and inspired the 1967 Israeliaggression against the Arab countries, has been sopainstaking in concealing its support for the 1956Anglo-Franco-Israeli aggression against Egypt. Theanswer comes from the USA's political, military-strategic and economic interests in the Middle East.

It is no mistake to regard Washington's mainpolitical objective in the Middle East as a desire toretain and ensure its economic and military-strategicpositions in the area. While posing as a champion ofthe peoples' fight for freedom, US imperialism hasbeen oppressing the progressive Arab regimesthroughout the postwar period.

The hypocrisy and the anti-Arab nature of theUSA's Middle East policy became especially obviousin 1956, during the preparation and in the course ofthe tripartite aggression against Egypt.

The USA's position in that period resultedfrom a desire to remain «pure» and «stainless» inthe eyes of the Arabs, and also to weaken the posi-tions of Britain and France to the utmost. It mayappear at first sight that Washington had no partin the aggression against the Egyptian Republic, butthe facts show up US politicians and state leaders asbare-faced hypocrites.

The USA had been informed about the prepa-ration of an attack on Egypt, but throughout thesummer and autumn of 1956 did nothing to avert it.What is more, the facts show that the USA com-pletely approved of its allies' actions.

The failure of the Suez venture did not merelymean defeat of the aggressors, but also of the USpolicy of getting others to work for its strategicgoals. Just then, Washington changed its tactics,declaring its intention to act as the major militaryforce in the Middle East. This was first implementedwithin the framework of the Dulles-EisenhowerDoctrine in the summer of 1958, when ships of theUS Sixth Fleet sailed into Beirut port and landedMarines on Lebanese territory. The aggressive actionin Lebanon, the plots against Syria and republicanIraq, and the overt support of the 1967 Israeliaggression against the UAR, the Syrian Arab Re-public and Jordan, exposed the doctrine's reaction-ary essence and its overt anti-Arab tendency.

The pro-Israeli line of the US government'sMiddle East policy depends not only on Washington's

41

and Tel Aviv's identical goals in this area, for thereis also the influence exerted on the USA's domesticpolitics by the pro-Israeli and Zionist circles insidethe country. The numerous Zionist organisations(United Jewish Appeal, American Jewish Congress,Zionist Organisation of America, and others),financial and economic groupings with prevailingJewish capital, and the pro-Zionist employees of theUS propaganda apparatus are those who shape thepro-Israeli mood in the USA.

A professor of Harvard University wrote inthis connection that the Zionists are able not onlyto control a substantial number of Jewish votes and.not less important, the financial and organisationalresources of the Jews, but also to blackmail anyonewho opposes their political aims with regard toIsrael. The Zionist organisation, B'nai Brith, whichhas some 500,000 members, usually initiates the mostdirty anti-Arab provocations.

The New York Times, which can hardly besuspected of sympathising with the Arabs, wrote:«The pro-Israel lobby utilises a complex of devices,ranging from knowledge of how to make maximumuse of the American press to political pressurethrough Congress to secret exchanges of militaryintelligence)).

• DEADLOCKED

WASHINGTON'S present Middle East policyis marked by stepped-up subversive activity against

42

the progressive Arab regimes, a desire to delay theonward march of the Arab world's historical deve-lopment, and continual attempts to impose a«position-of-strength» settlement on the Arabs onIsrael's conditions.

The USA's ((important interests in the MiddleEast», is behind the US government's reluctance toinfluence Israel and to imoel her rulers to heed thevoice of reason and the demands of world opinionfor the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occu-pied Arab territories and the establishment of ajust and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The Israeli aggression in June 1967, which wasmade possible only because of allround US support,has not toppled or weakened the progressive regimesin the Middle East. What is more, the Arab peopleshave rallied together in the face of the commondanger, discerning the USA's role in the acts of theIsraeli aggressors.

Israel's aggression against the UAR, Syria, andJordan has helped many Arab governments torealise that their common goal is struggle againstimperialism and its spearhead, Israel, and that onlyunity of the Arab countries can help to withstandthe imperialist plots in the Middle East.

The scale of the USA's support for Israel andthe imperialist nature of its policy towards theArab countries have given President Sadat goodcause to say that «the USA, persisting in its policy,

43

I I

which presents a serious threat to the present andfuture of the Arab nation, is a direct accomplice inIsrael's aggression against the whole Arab nation».Numerous concrete facts bear this out.

The widely advertised «fiexibility» of USMiddle East policy manifests itself only when thereis need to «torpedo» an initiative of the peacelovingforces aimed at finding a way out of the long-drawn-out crisis, whereas Washington's «sensible pragma-tisms apparently consists in following the tradi-tional principle of its Middle East policy: «What isgood for Israel, is bound to be good for the UnitedStates*.

While Israel, after 1967, retained a seriousmilitary advantage and carried out air-raids on theterritory of neighbouring Arab states with impunity,Washington believed its Middle East line to beinfallible. The supply to the aggressor of the mostmodern weapons, the torpedoing of every effort toget the Middle East settlement out of its impasse,the stubborn insistence on the Arab states' directtalks with Israel, and the support of the Israelileadership's openly obstructionist line in the matterof a settlement, have all given the US governmentconfidence that the Israeli occupation of the Arabterritories would last as long as it was necessary tobring the Arab countries to their knees and to forcethem to accept a settlement on Israel's terms.

The US government, whose representative hadalso voted for Security Council Resolution in 1967,

44

appeared not to see anything reprehensible in theIsraeli leadership's bluntly obstructionist line, pre-ferred to overlook the lawless action of the Israelioccupationists in the age-old Arab territories, andtacitly encouraged the raids into Arab territory.Washington's politicians were not perturbed by thedeath and destruction wrought by the US Phantomswith Israeli markings on the workers of Abu Zaabland the school-children of Bahr el Bakr.

But times change. The steps taken by the ArabRepublic of Egypt and the other Arab states tostrengthen their defence potential had a fairlyspeedy effect on the political situation. The USgovernment has now found it useful to pretend thatit is very .much concerned about the unsettled Arab-Israeli dispute, and has declared for all to hear thatpeace in the Middle East is a vital goal of USforeign policy.

One should not assume, however, that therehave been any real changes. The USA's deliberatelyactive Middle East policy was designed to cover upthe old bankrupt plans of saddling the Arab stateswith a settlement benefiting Israel alone. True, it isonly fair to say that these plans are now beingpresented in a new wrapping.

At the same time, Washington has tried to giveits own interpretation of the Egyptian government'srecent initiative. On February 4, President Sadatissued a constructive proposal envisaging the possi-bility of reopening the Suez Canal for international

45

navigation provided there was a partial withdrawalof the Israeli troops from the Sinai Peninsula andtheir unconditional withdrawal from the east bankof the Canal to intermediate positions. Egypt's sug-gestion of Israeli withdrawal is organically linkedwith a comprehensive settlement on the basis of allthe provisions of the Security Council's Resolutionof November 22, 1967.

This interpretation of the Egyptian govern-ment's constructive initiative has repeatedly ap-peared in official Egyptian documents, which arewell known to the US government. Nevertheless,the US government has laid emphasis on achievingan understanding only on the re-opening of theSuez Canal, deliberately ignoring the whole problemof a settlement. US Secretary of State, William

•Rogers, has virtually admitted as much during hisnumerous press-conferences in the course of hisjy[iddle East tour last spring. He tried to sugar thepill by presenting his steps in search of a solutionof the navigation problem as a «first link», the easiestpart of the whole settlement.

It would be naive to expect the Arab states andthe Arab Republic of Egypt to rise to this bait, andeven more naive to think that the US government,attempting to reach a solution of the navigationproblem, has changed its previous policy of uncondi-tional support of Israel and its expansionist line, apolicy of providing Tel Aviv with extensive militaryand economic aid. Pursuing its old line in respect ofIsrael, the US government tends to «forget» that itis thereby giving Tel Aviv a chance to continue itsaggression and consolidate its hold on the occupiedArab territories.

Washington's double dealing in the MiddleEast also came out in the visit to Israel byAssistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco, who wentthere, it was said, to achieve ((temporary peace». USpropaganda was quick to advertise his visit as«another» US initiative aimed at eliminating theMiddle East crisis. However, this initiative provedto be nothing but a continuation of the old policybased on the desire to press a surrender on theArabs and to protect the interests of Israel and theimperialist monopolies backing her.

As to the peace plan discussed in his talks with

46 47

I

the Israeli leaders, Israel's Ambassador to Washing,ton, Yitshak Rabin, admitted that «Sisco did notbring along any concrete US proposals on a possibletemporary agreements.

The question is why did the US official un-dertake such a long trip. Perhaps his aim was toshore up Israel's military and political positionsunder cover of the much-advertised «peace initia-tives. According to Moshe Dayan, when the Israelistold the US diplomat that the Gaza strip wouldnever be returned to the Egyptians, «his responsewas not negatives. What more is there to say?

Consequently, nothing has changed in practicalterms. The United States has continued to provideIsrael with extensive military and economic support,and Israel, with US connivance, has continued tooccupy the age-old Arab territories, defying theUnited Nations, violating the provisions of SecurityCouncil Resolution No. 242, and blatantly sabotagingthe mission of the UN Secretary-General's specialenvoy in the Middle East, Dr. Jarring.

In his speech of 16 September the President ofEgypt, Anwar Sadat, stressed: «The USA is inten-tionally deceiving and leading astray world opinions.About what «devotion» to peace by the United Sta-tes is it possible to speak, since up to now the USgovernment has not spoken out on such issues ofvital importance for the Arab states as the deadlinefor a withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the occu-pied Arab territories and the future of Arab-Israeliborders after a settlement.

48

The facts prove that Washington's Middle Eastoolicy is in a dead end, the attempts of the Repub-lican Administration to present the USA as a bene-factor of the Middle East nations are doomed to fail,and the blatantly pro-Israeli line of US diplomacyand its attempts to undermine the positions of theprogressive Arab regimes will not yield any politicaldividends. The reason for the failure of the USA'sMiddle East policy lies in its utter lack of prospects.

The Arab nations have learned to distinguishfriend from foe. They remember how Gamal AbdelNasser used to say that the US position was identicalwith that of Israel's and there is no doubt in anyone's mind about this. Life has been providing dailyproof of these words. •

49

*~w

ALESTINE QUESTIONIN

WORLD PRESS

Our «world press» extracts for this month include:(1) a letter by the Archbishop of Canterbury published inthe London «Times» issue of December 22, 1971 in whichhe points out that Israel's Jerusalem «master building plansis disfiguring- the Holy City. (2) a commentary on «IsraeI'sDiplomatic Intrig;ues» published in the Moscow «NewTimes» in December 1971.

Jerusalem Disfigured (The Times of London -December 22, 1971)

Dr. Ramsey, writing on the rebuilding ofJerusalem in his Diocesan News Letter for Januarysays: «There can be none of us who has not beenmoved by the sufferings of the Jews in Europe inthe past, or by recent sufferings of Arabs who havelived for years as homeless refugees.

50

«The way to peace is not to dwell on the past,but to act as justly as possible for the future and to

void actions which are bound to contain the seedOf future conflict.

«The old city of Jerusalem is sacred to Jews, toChristians and to Muslims. Each of these religionsrespects the devotion to Jerusalem felt by the others.It is a city which belongs to all three; and thepractical recognition of this by whoever, at anytime, rules or controls the city is essential to peace.

«We know that the Israeli Government isstriving to provide new housing for the people. Itis, however, distressing that the building programmeof the present authorities is disfiguring the city andits surroundings in a way which wounds the feelingsof those who care for its historic beauty and suggestsan insensitive attempt to proclaim as an Israeli city,one which can never be other than the city of threegreat religions and their peoples.

I hope that by calling a halt to the buildingprogramme there may be one welcome step towardsthe peace of Jerusalem. We pray for the peace ofJerusalem and for the peace of all nations.

Israel's Diplomatic Intrigues (New Times - No. 50,December 1971)

The beginning of the winter season has beenmarked by the intensification of diplomatic ma-noeuvres on the part of Israel. Early this monthPremier Golda Meir went off to the United States.

51

Before that Foreign Minister Abba Eban visitedLondon. And other Tel Aviv leaders, includingDeputy Premier Yigal Allon, delivered themselvesof foreign policy statements.

What has prompted this outburst of diplomaticactivity? It pursues at least two aims: to hamper thediscussion of the Middle East issue at the U.N.General Assembly and to get the United States tosupply Israel with more offensive weapons, notablyPhantom jets. The Israeli leaders divided amongthemselves the roles each was to play in the achieve-ment of these aims. While Eban sought to give theimpression in London that Israel was «prepared toconsider any solution of the problems facing theMiddle East,» Allon went about frightening one andall with the prospect of the «fourth round of fight-ing)) between Israel and the Arabs. As for PremierMeir, she left for Washington, Allon claimed, withthe aim of ((deepening understanding between Israeland the United States.))

From Tel Aviv's point of view, such «under-standings means only one thing—.Washington'sunconditional support of the aggressive plans of theIsraeli extremists and satisfaction of their demandsfor destructive weapons. This is precisely whatPremier Meir talked about with President Nixon fortwo hours, according to press reports. After theirmeeting, the White House Press Secretary said theyhad a useful and satisfactory exchange of views

52

on steps to be taken to meet Israel's long-termrequirements in modernizing its armed forces andmaintaining their level in line with the U.S. policyof preserving the present balance of military power.Secretary of State William Rogers was likewisereluctant to reveal America's hand and made thesame ambiguous statement after his meeting withMrs. Meir about preserving the ((military balance.))

*

Some anonymous «officials» quoted by theWashington Evening Star were less reticent, how-ever. They stressed that it had already been decidedin principle to sell Phantoms to Israel and that itonly remained to fix the date for their delivery.

Washington is thus again encouraging theIsraeli expansionists. But while America's supportdoes encourage them in their truculence it is power-less to strengthen Tel Aviv's international positionand put an end to its isolation. The GeneralAssembly discussion is making this plain. What ismore, in siding with the Tel Aviv hawks, the U.S.ruling elements risk a further decline in their ownpolitical stocks. Commenting on Mrs. Meir's talks inWashington, the Cairo Al-Akhbar writes: ((ContinuedU.S. support of Israel's aggression is a poor invest-ment that will not bring Washington any dividends)).Nor will it enhance its prestige, we may add, •

53

(December 1971)

REVIEWOF

EVENTS

• Soviet Union Pledges Support to the Arabs

The Soviet Ambassador in Cairo, VladimirVinogradov has declared that the Soviet Union willsupport the Arabs, in their efforts to regain theterritories occupied by Israel, whether the MiddleEast decision is peace or war. He pointed out thathis country's pledge of support shall be carried outnot by words but by deeds.

The Soviet pledge came at a time when thesituation in the Middle East was growing obscureand when it was decided to reactivate GunnarJarring's peace mission, which had been suspendedsince last March, after Israel had failed to givespecific commitments in reply to the memorandumsubmitted to her by Dr. Gunnar Jarring on February8, 1971.

The UN mediator had asked the Israelis to

C0mmit themselves to withdrawal from the Arabterritories which they occupied in June 1967. Butthey gave a negative reply to his request.

m UN General Assembly Adopts Resolution

on Middle East

Egyptian Foreign Minister, Mahmoud Iliad,has declared that the resolution adopted by themajority of UN General Assembly members in thefirst half of December 1971, is rightly regarded as adefeat to both Israel and the U.S. The Arab presshailed, as a diplomatic victory, the UN Middle Eastresolution which called on Israel to accept the prin-ciple of withdrawal from the occupied Arab terri-tories and stressed the inadmissibility of acquisitionof territory by force.

Mr. Riad said that U.S. abstention when votingon the resolution reflected the double-faced attitudeof the U..S. Government which had promised supportto Dr. Jarring's mission but backed out when itcame to voting.

It is to be noted in this connection that coun-tries of the Eastern and of the Western blocs votedin favour of the resolution, a fact that underlinesIsrael's isolation in the international field.

• U.S. Decides to provide Israel with More Phantoms

At the time when observers were expecting the

5554

U.S. Government to exert pressure on Israel t0

modify its intransigence, the Nixon administrationannounced that the U,S. would give Israel the Phan-toms she had asked for.

President Nixon made this decision known justbefore announcing his other decision regarding hisintention to run for a second term as President.

The timing of the two decisions clearly indica-tes that President Nixon is after Zionist Jewish votesin the next presidential elections. The pretext forthe Middle East decision, however was «balance ofpower» in the region.

In a television interview, Mr Nixon said, «TheU,S. will not permit military imbalance in theMiddle East».

Secretary of State, Mr Rogers, explained theAmerican concept of military balance in a mannerthat implied it meant the continuation of the presentIsraeli superiority in respect of offensive arms andweapons.

This American stand gave another proof ofWashingtons' biased and one-sided attitude to theMiddle East situation.

• Resistance Operations In 1971

The :Zionist occupation authorities have ad-mitted that the Palestinian commandos carried out700 military operations inside the occupied Arabterritories. An enemy spokesman reported that theGaza Strip witnessed more than half of theseoperations.

56

Admission by Israel of these operations isespecially significant because it conies after thesevere blows directed against Palestinian resistanceby the Jordanian regime. It provides adequate proofthat the Jordanian campaign has not succeeded ineliminating Palestinian resistance as had been hopedfor by the enemies of the Palestine Revolution. Onthe contrary, resistance operations have continuedin the various parts of the occupied Arab territories.An important resistance operation has been therecent attack launched by Palestinian commandosagainst the town of Safad, which is deeply situatedbehind the ceasefire lines.

• Municipal Elections in the West Bank

Within the framework of the Zionist policyaimed at imposing the «fait accompli)) of their occu-pation of the Arab territories, and particularly ofthe West Bank, the Israeli authorities have announ-ced that municipal elections in the West Bank willbe held next spring. The announcement has the aimof making world opinion believe that the presentsituation in the Holy Land is stable and that theinhabitants of the occupied Arab territories aregiven full freedom to elect their representatives.

Reports from the West Bank, however, indi-

cated that the staunch stand of the Arab inhabitantswill foil enemy plans to mislead world opinion. •

57

HANNA FARHA

As the Night Dies 1 Shall Return

Mother as the night dies I shall returnI will return with the budding of the rosesI am southward bound as a winging dove.Have you some parting word for me?Perhaps some thought to guide?Some God-inspired words to impart before the

confrontation?I am not going there to sow the seeds of terror among

a restless peopleNor do I return to my fatherland to rout the

strangers there entrenchedOr strip them of their clothing or their shoes.I go rather as if to kiss the sanguine lips of a land

whose heart is rent.What might those lips say as I with naked lips

draw nearUnto that bosom home my father built for those of

his own bloodsome two decades gone?Those children were beautiful in your eyes, mother,

and so remain.

58

That image time has etched into your mother'sconsciousness

Will there remain impressed, until as infection itspreads

to those yet unaware of a lost children's plight.

These scattered children, grown too large to beconfined and walled

within a tent, a tent too small to enclose and shrouda dream.

Yesterday we dwelled as in a nest, - smaller thanthat the U.N. gave, -

We were happy then, life cannot mean happinessnow,

until that land receives her children once again.Its smell is not of ordinary earth, for God dwelt

thereon,In every reach of land we felt His presenceIn the soil, in the green grassIn the soil, in the parched grassI wonder of God's -dwelling place today.Is he in that land awaiting his children's eager

return?As birds unto a nest?When that time comes, mother, I pledgeThat not a grain of soil nor a blade of grassWill escape my grasp, as one by one I gather all.Even if green grass has parched to brown, and

brown to ash.Ah, then I will not let even the lingering smoke

escape,But rather, bending low, heap my mihbaj to

the brim 1and listen to its song

60

Reckoning every stranger from afar,j promise you'll not ignite the fire this time,-(Jod is not honored by fire,-That God Whom I will find upon those plainsand amidst the ruins.I will find Him there my beloved, and He will

speak to usThis time omitting naught from A to ZHis words spring not from fear or cowardice,For He knows not cowardice, that is ours to claim.God's story will begin with that interminable war

long past,That war which started in an alien land and

dragged itselfEven to my doorstep, leaving tattered dreams and

sorrows in its wake.I'll listen to Him., I promise you thatI'll not interrupt, nor allow a stranger's interference.Even the chipping of the stone my father used inBreaking almonds for our food will then be stilled.The soil and the grasses' smoke will seem as if in

audience.

61

|

As one we shall await His words.After that relentless war, did not God move among

thoseUnnamed aliens, from unnamed distant lands?Among those who brought our bosom land to its

unknown fate?In God that fate will become known,We will know the stranger down to his very

heartbeatWe will know his every thought from the moment

of his escapeAnd settlement, or can we call it that, in our land?

I promise you that I'll not interrupt Him,

And even to the alien I'll say, «Now your silencemust be eternal,))

But to the mihbaj I will shout, SING,

And I will sing and dance, when God has had His say.

I know Mother that God's story will not be heardin one hour, nor one year, nor even twenty,

But I will listen, and the alien will keep silentthis time.

Silent in my bosom home, not one of them will dareTo move or breathe lest he disturb God's presence,Until the story ends.

And the story shall end,-unlike other stories,-

This one is unique, told in a world bereft of reason,In a crazy world, arrogant and unaware

62

world of jokes which bring more bitternessthan joy,

A world which thinks not of a children's plight.Would that I could hear from God the story of

crossing

That border river at night, the way lighted3y the whites of alien eyes, And from Him hear

the story

of one who threw himself upon a bomb in anAmman market place,

Lying down to death as if upon a bed of silk, tosleep. 2

AH of these were children two scant decades past,Mother dearest,

I'll not return before the night dies,But wait instead to return to youwith the budding roses.

* 1. The Mihbaj is an Arabic coffee grinder, which inaddition to grinding coffee, is also used as a musicalinstrument by Arabs. Additionally, it is used as abeckon to neighbors and friends to gather in fellow-

ship.* 2. The story is told of a Palestinian commando who had

been sent on a bombing mission to his homeland, butaccidentally dropped the bomb in an Amman market.On seeing that it would explode and kill his country-men, he threw himself upon it, taking the full blasthimself, saving; many and causing his own death.

63

cIONIST UOLONIZATION

IN PALESTINE =DEBIT& CREDIT.by: Khalid Kishtainy

The Zionists and. their supporters often claim thatearly Zionist settlement in Palestine bestowed substantialbenefits upon the Arab inhabitants of the country. Thefollowing objective and well-documented study, taken from arecent book* by the author examines the flimsy grounds forthis claim and gives a careful assessment of the debit andcredit of early Zionist colonization in Palestine.

A careful study of economic and social condi-tions prevailing in Palestine in the nineteenthcentury would reveal a land verging on a greatrevival, expressed in the dreams of its poets andwriters, and indicated in the statistics of the socio-economic experts. Some of the fruits of this forward

* Palestine in Perspective, P.L.O,Research Center, Beirut.

64

surging movement have already appeared in suchcountries as Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan,the countries adjacent to Palestine; there is no rea-son to suppose that Palestine alone was going to lagbehind. There was enough history, tradition, know-ledge, social basis, economic organisation andwillpower to thrust Palestine into the twentiethcentury orbit.

The question of whether the Zionist enterprisehelped or hindered this process is one of the worstacrobatic exercises on the «ifs» and «might-have-beens» of history. Too many factors must be takeninto account. Without the Balfour Declaration,Palestine might have achieved independence earlier;it might have joined Syria and Lebanon in a unitedArab state as envisaged by the Arab nationalists.The country would have escaped all of the destruc-tion and strife which has accompanied its history

65

since 1920. Haifa was made a terminus for the IraqiPetroleum Company pipeline, a position which wastorpedoed with the establishment of Israel. Morepipelines might have been laid from Kuwait, Iraqand Saudi Arabia were it not for the Zionist pre-sence. The benefits which the Suez Canal was besto-wing on the land east of Sinai were also demolishedand the canal itself was relegated because of itssuccessive closures resulting from political develop,ments. The trade and communications position wasalso wiped out. The Jewish National Home attractedJewish capital on nationalistic or religious grounds;how much capital could an Arab Palestine—inde-pendent or united with a larger Arab state—haveattracted on solid economic grounds? Such are someof the possibilities and crossroads of history. TheZionists have undoubtedly an alternative list ofpossibilities.

Certain developments, however, are a matterof historical records. Early Zionist colonisation didmore harm than good to the country. The Jewishimmigrants were more of paupers, penniless ideolo-gists, and impractical intellectuals than anythingelse. Far from improving the health of the natives,they brought with them diseases which were ragingin the crowded streets of cold, damp Europe, par-ticularly diseases of the respiratory system. Theyalso brought with them the scenes of dirt, rubbish,and decay known to the history of the medievalJewish districts of Europe. With the sudden conges-tion they caused in the small towns of Palestine, the

66

sewage, rubbish disposal and water supply organi-sation broke down. The limited funds of the localauthorities were thus diverted to the more imme-diate menace of health hazards. Road building,education and general development were thusdenied to the rest of the community.

Apart from a few hundred people, the wholeJewish community that emerged from the Zionistproject led an economically unproductive life. Thecharity money was naturally not meant to givethem a luxury life which could overflow with somefringe benefits to the natives. So we can presumehere that these people not only lived as parasites onthe diaspora but also on the Arab people as well.The colonisation organisations, of course, boughtland and paid handsomely for it, causing in theprocess some appreciation in the price of land. Mostof the bulk purchases were made with absenteelandlords, like the Sursuqs, who naturally used themoney outside the country, little of it reaching thePalestinians. On some of these lands, the fellahinwere left to till the fields as cheap labour; in othercases they were simply evicted and valuable ex-panses of land were left fallow. In 1930, 114,329metric dunums out of 270,000 dunums held by theJewish National Fund were left uncultivated!

For centuries, the Jews were barred fromagriculture in Europe. As a result, when they cameto Palestine, they had not the slightest notion ofhow to dig a canal or transplant a seedling. Afterthe establishment of the Jewish National Home,

67

they improved their position by importing agricul-tural specialists from Western Europe and Americaand sinking vast sums in machinery and equipment.From this, the Arabs learned something by example,a fact which was pounced on by the Zionist pub-licists as evidence of the benefits the natives gainedfrom the Zionist work. Nothing is mentioned of theother side of the picture. The basis of Zionistagriculture in Palestine was the agricultural skill

of the fellah. The early colonisers had to learneverything from him; ask him what could and couldnot be done, where to plant vegetables and whereto sow wheat, what cattle were most suitable, etc.The fellah, according to the records, was even moregenerous with his advice to his future tormentorsthan with his hospitality. To get a picture of thedifference in agricultural skill, management andforthrightness, the case of the Montefiore plantationserves as a good example. Sir Moses bought aplantation from the Palestinian Arabs. It was athriving orchard, a total number of 1407 trees, witha wide range of fruits.

After a few years under Jewish management,the number of trees fell to only 900 in 1875.2 Thefiasco was discussed at some length in the diaries,and the biographer of the Montefiores observed:«Knowing that similar gardens and fields in posses-sion of the natives were very profitable, he (SirMoses) was rather surprised at the result.»3 This isby no means an isolated case. In 1930, Sir John HopeSimpson mentioned that a number of villages boughtby the Jews began paying less tithes than beforewhen cultivated by the Arabs. In addition, some30,000 dunums in the Vale of Esdraelon were con-verted, not to green fields blossoming with flowersand crops, but to derelict lands covered with weedsand teeming with hordes of destructive mice—sincethey had been bought from the Arabs.4

69

The Profits and Losses Account

No one, of course, wants to claim that less landhas been cultivated since the Balfour Declaration orthat the agricultural standard has declined. What isessential to remember is that a decline in agricultureand standard of living would have resulted in Pales-tine due to the Zionist influx and its uneconomicenterprise, were it not for the presence of anotherfactor, namely the fantastic capital investment.Money offered as a sacrifice to a nationalistic altarkept the show going. When the swampy lands of theHadera (totalling some 30,000 dunums) were bought,the fellahin warned the Jews of its unsuitability foragriculture and of the endemic malaria threat. «Weneedn't take our cue from barbarians)), was thereply of the confident colonisers. Within a matter ofmonths, the landscape was littered with tombstonesof the Jewish settlers and the colony was as good asabandoned. SOS calls were sent to Baron de Roths-child who opened his purse once again to providefunds to tempt Arab labour to tackle the job ofdraining off the swamps. «The draining of themarshes was due not to the superior skill of theJewish colonist as compared with the existing•barbarians', but to the aid of their superior funds»,wrote N. Barbour on the episode.5

Statistics on the cost of Zionist colonisation,the budgets of the Jewish Agency and the aid givento Israel, are the stock-in-trade of most books dealingwith the Palestine question. Arab sources in par-

70

ticular have amassed volumes of information on thissubject. It suffices here to quote a few of the salientfacts as an indication. Until the end of 1941, the billof the Jewish colonisation in Palestine reached fivehundred million dollars, according to Dr. Chaim\Veizmann.6 During the Millionaires' Conferenceheld in Jerusalem in August 1967, Finance Ministerpinhas Sapir stated that the financial aid receivedby Israel between 1946 and 1966 amounted to sevenbillion dollars, i.e., more than half the total value ofthe Marshall Plan of thirteen billion dollars, ex-tended for the recovery of Western Europe between1948 and 1954, or, conversely, each Israeli receivedtwenty times what each European received.

Such is the picture of the money sunk in thesmall plots of land reclaimed by Israel. If theaccounts were submitted to any banker or companydirector, he would think the world was going madand the science of arithmetics had been thrownoverboard. If the same accounts were summarisedto any citizen of the deprived world where famineand disease are raging for lack of everything, hewould simply call it a sin. Israel, which representsonly one per mille of the population of the develo-ping world, was receiving ten percent of the entireaid given by the developed world to the developingworld. Politicians of Israel took a short cut inanswering the puzzled economist by affirming thateconomic laws did not apply to Israel when it wasfound that the heavily financed and mechanised

71

Jewish farms were producing crops far more ex-pensive than those produced by the Arabs, Dr.Ruppin, the agricultural manager of the JewishAgency, advised the Jewish farmer not to sell hisproducts but to eat them himself! «They have grea-ter value than the money which he will obtain forthem». This was why mixed farming was found tobe the most convenient.7

According to the reports of the Executive tothe Zionist Congresses, only one or two of all thesettlements managed to balance their accounts. In1930, iSir John Hope Simpson found only KfarYeheskiel, with 59 families, really self-supportingafter sinking some £133,329 into the colony. KiryathAnavim, which was claimed as a great success havingmade an annual profit of just £164, was discoveredto have most of its men actually working as wageearners in Jerusalem bringing in a total of £1,080,paying back nothing for debts or rents, and stillsustaining a deficit of £5,115.8 The English agricul-tural experts found the outlay of the Zionist colo-nies so lavish and «over-capitalised» that it wasessential to write off a considerable amount of theoutlay .9

The sheer waste entailed in the Zionist revivalof Palestine caused a number of serious rifts in theMovement. The story of Justice Brandeis and hisAmerican supporters who broke away from theZionist Organisation in the twenties on this par-ticular point is one episode. The World ZionistOrganisation was constantly subjected to a barrage

72

of criticism on this account throughout its history.10jyfax Nordau, Herzl's companion and successor, wascritical throughout of the agricultural Jewish coloni-sation and was certain that it would never beviable.ll S. Klinger of the Revisionist faction wrote:«This monstrous costliness of Jewish colonisation isnot only preposterous—it is deadly.»12 According tohis figures, the cost of the settlement of the Greekrefugees was £30 per head, the Armenian refugees£40 per head, but the figure for the Jews was£400 per head. In southern Russia where the Sovietgovernment was settling Jews in agriculture withgenerous help from the Joint Distribution Com-mittee, the cost of settling an entire family was£150-£200 with 82.25% of the expenses returnable.13

The story of waste is not confined to the agra-rian scene. The numerous housing units with nooccupants, the factories which continuously ran atlosses, and the overstaffed administration andacademic institutions are facts which keep comingto life whenever they cross the barrier of scandalsor jokes. One can only refer the reader here to thedaily press and periodicals. Far from the allegedpicture of excellent management and ingeniousrevival of the desert, the Zionist enterprise is actu-ally the biggest white elephant ever bred by a richmaharajah. The Jews have often impressed theworld with their ways of turning dust into gold; inIsrael they are showing how to turn gold into dust.The Jewish Chronicle commented on the economicmanagement of the enterprise in the thirties with

73

these words: «The crux of the present situation is

that Palestine has too much money and does notknow how to use it now.»14 If we take the total costincluding armaments, war damages, disruption ofthe economy and communications of the Middle East,maintenance of Arab refugees, settlement of Jews,and the reclamation of the small swamp and barrenlands, we cannot fail to consider the so-called Zionistrevival of Palestine as a major economic disaster inthe history of man.

Arab Shane of the Zionist Revival

The Zionist Jews are free, of course, to do withtheir money what they like and whatever revivalthey have managed to procure in Palestine shouldbe still credited to their work. The difficulty here isthat it was not their money. The bulk of funds sunkinto Palestine came from the taxpayers of Germany,Britain, the United States and every country whichsends aid to Israel, provides troops for the peaceoperations in the area or allows Jewish contribu-tions to be calculated against income tax. To thepeoples of such countries and to the internationalistswho look at the mass of mankind as one family, theZionist waste is a terrible setback.

Yet, Zionist enterprise in Palestine was notonly carried out at the expense of the world at largebut also at the expense of the Palestinians. We haveseen how the influx of the Zionist settlers affectedthe rest of the community and caused the break-down of public services in the previous century. The

parasitical existence of the Jewish settler on therest of the community continued well into thiscentury. Considerable governmental sums werespent on providing for the new Zionist settlements.Jn 1929, the government had to write off loansamounting to £75,619 advanced to the township ofTel Aviv. A memorandum of the Treasury on thesubject explained the reasons: «The state of theaffairs of the township is due to unsound finance onthe part of the Council in embarking upon works,largely unproductive, and services in excess of itsmeans...»15 The Arabs felt very bitter and made nosecret of their opinion. The Zionists replied thatthey were paying taxes, and allegedly more taxesper capita than the Arabs. The Arabs, on the otherhand, were denied access to the valuable state landswhich were reserved for and distributed to theJewish settlers under the heading of promoting theJewish National Home. Had such lands been dis-tributed to the fellahin, they could have developedthem as easily with a bit of foreign aid or credit.The industrial side was completely denied to theArabs. The fate of this field was determined in 1922when the whole hydraulic sources of the countrywere given to the Zionist entrepreneur, PinhasRutenburg, under the scheme which bore his name,behind the backs of Arab, British, and internationalfinancers who were considering the project. TheArabs who wanted to interfere in the matter werethreatened with deportation.16

The Jewish National Home was also built on

75

the sweat of Arab labour and experience. We havementioned how the early colonisers took their firstlessons from the fellahin. The hazardous andstrenuous tasks were given to Arab workers notonly from Palestine but also from other Arab count-ries. The draining of the Hadera swamps, forexample, was carried out by Egyptian fellahinspecially imported for the task. Sudanese workerswere also contracted for work in other difficult pro-jects. Once the bare foundation was established, theZionist Organisation stepped in to call for the boy-cott of Arab labour. This policy was pursuedruthlessly between the two world wars, but Arablabour was employed here and there, not where andwhen the Arabs were desperate for employment butwhen and where their employment was advanta-geous to the Jews. This was also true after the 1967war when refugees from Gaza were employed invarious building projects at lower prices, arousingthe protests of the Israeli trade unions.17

Not only did the Zionist pioneers learn how towork the land from the fellahin, but they alsoestablished the whole future of Israeli economy onwhat the Arabs had built. Apart from the mainitem of charity, tourism, and the citrus trade arethe two primary sources of income for Israel. Bothwere introduced and promoted by the Arabs underthe caliphate. A great deal of the Arab folk arts,including dancing and decoration, were adapted bythe immigrants or incorporated into other genres ofart to produce what they now call Israeli art. The

76

popular dishes in the so-called Israeli restaurants of$ew York, London or Paris are the «hummus» and«falafil», the two Arab dishes of ordinary folk.Indeed, Israeli cuisine is simply old Arab Palestiniancooking.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, learnedpractically nothing from the Jewish immigrants insuch matters. Dr. Ruppin admitted that the settlershad no appreciation of aesthetic things and went asfar as to doubt that they could ever attain a sense ofbeauty.18 Arthur Koestler derided the hotch-potchjumble of buildings which he saw in Israel. At best,he could only describe the manner of building withfunctionalism. The lack of elegance, nice appearance,pleasant clothes and graceful manners so revoltedmany European visitors and British officials that theZionists attributed the anti-Zionist attitudes of suchpeople to the ugly appearance and ill manners ofthe settlers. Even now, when Israelis are remindedof this aspect, they shrug their shoulders indiffe-rently. This is all the residue of the squalid condi-tions endured for centuries in the ghettoes of easternEurope. Aesthetic background was not the onlyaspect transplanted from the Russian Pale of Settle-ment to Palestine. The characteristic psychologly ofthe ghettoes with its persecution mania, self-cen-tredness, suspicion, isolation, egoism and scores ofneurotic obsessions associated with that life was alsotransplanted to Palestine. Psychological maladies areknown to inflict more disorientations and ill effectson the surrounding people than probably what is

77

suffered by the subject himself. It is very difficultto assess the extent of the changes which the Zionistcolonisation affected on the mental make-up of thePalestine society since its beginning. The backwardlooking mind of the Zionist, as evidenced in resur-recting an ancient language, an archaic alphabetand a forgotten history and in inflicting clericalismand traditionalism on society, may also provedetrimental to the health of the Arab peoples in thewhole area of the Middle East.

The Zionists may counter such arguments bythe material benefits which their project bestowedon the Palestinian Arabs. They find themselves hereon firmer ground. After repeating the same case ofPalestine as an empty country infested with malariaand ruined villages whose population had died fromdisease, Mr. Koestler went on to hold the same com-parison between the standard of the Palestiniansbefore the Jewish National Home and after. It isshown that their income had increased by a fasterrate than that of the Arabs in the neighbouringcountries. The Arabs here reply by producing figureswhich show a faster increase in prices of consumergoods in Palestine than in the same neighbouringcountries, but they have difficulty refuting theZionist claim altogether. It is logical to expect thata portion of the vast sums of money reaching theJews must have seeped through and reached thepockets of the Arabs,

Another standard used in assessing the civilising

78

.

effect of Zionism on Palestine was the increase inthe population of the Arab townships and thecountry as a whole. Indeed, one of the repeatedcriticisms in the nineteenth century was the factthat the country was empty, which the Zionists tookliterally. This is, of course, part of the capitalistconcept of heaven as a land teeming with a millionmillion inhabitants buying angelic draperyof ten yards of terylene each. The European tra-vellers were looking for markets and the countrywhich had no market was no country. In his famousmemorandum to Palmerstone, Lord Ashley simply

79

Tdismissed Palestine as a worthless country becauseit had very few people. Apparently to these gentle-men, it was more criminal to allow a land to bewithout people, than to see a people without a land.

The present discussion must remain incomplete.The Zionist enterprise is less than a century old.Israel has lived only a score of years. The conflict isgaining momentum from day to day, moving gra-dually away from periodic war stages to moreserious business. Both sides are thinking in nuclearterms and both camps, socialist and imperialist, arebecoming more deeply and deeply involved. Willthe history of twentieth century Israel be anydifferent from that of the tenth century B.C. Israel?Can the country escape the repetition of the sameruin, destruction and suffering which accompaniedthe history of ancient Israel? Will the presentshrines and temples of the former civilisationsescape the tragic waves of destruction, like the actsof the lunatics of whom the fire raiser of the AqsaMosque was one? This will really be a miracle, evenin a land of miracles. •

(1) Cmd. 3686, 1930.

(2) A Narrative of a Forty Days Sojourn in the HolyLand, address given by Sir Moses Monteflore, London,1877, pp. 67, 68.

80

(3) Monteflore, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 68.

(4) Cmd. 3686, 1930, p. 17.

(5) Harbour, N. Nisi Dominus London, 1944. p. 116.

(6) Foreign Affairs, January 1942.

(7) Ruppin, A. Agricultural Colonisation of the ZionistOrganization in Palestine. London, 1926. p. 15.

(8) Cmd. 3686, 1930, pp. 45, 47, 48.

(9) Ibid., p. 42.

(10) Cf. Ruppin's reply in the Zionist Review, September1921.

(11) Zionist Bulletin, June 1914.

(12) Klinger, S., The Ten-Year Plan for Palestine, NewZionist Organisation, No. 4, 1938.

(13) Cmd. 3686, 1930.

(14) Jewish Chronicle, 28 July 1933.

(15) Report of the Commission on the Palestine Distur-bances, Cmd. 3530, 1930.

(16) Hansard, House of Commons, 4 July 1922. The storyof this affair is discussed in Jeffries, J.M.N., Palestine—The Reality, London, 1939.

(17) See, for example, Ma'ariv, 8 February 1970.

(18) Ruppin, op. cit., pp. 124-126.

81

T

BOOK REVIEWS

The following reviews of two outstanding Zionist booksare by British journalist, Irene Beeson, and the well-knownIndian Middle East specialist, G. H. Jansen. They wereoriginally written for the Arabic language bi-monthlyjournal «Palestine Affairss, which is published by theP.L.O. Research Center.

• Forged in Fury by Michael Elkins. (BalantineBooks, New York Feb. 1971) _ Reviewed byIrene Beeson.

This is a gripping account of Jewish resistancein the Second World War; of the agonizing birth of

82

that resistance, against impossible odds, in theghettos of Germany and Poland and the Nazi con-centration camps.

In a style that is incisive, harsh, often bitterand sardonic, Michael Elkins describes the horrorsof the death camps and how, after millions of Jewshad gone (dike sheep to the slaughter)), a smallgroup of unarmed, inexperienced Jews of the KovnoGhetto, near the Prussian border, revolted anddecided to organize «some resistance, some token oftheir dignity as human beings...»

Mr. Elkins describes in harrowing detail thepainful buildup of the resistance and its spread tothe isolated ghettos; the problems faced not only inoutwitting the Nazis, but in getting their own threa-tened people to follow those Jews who believed thatsince they were all marked for death, better to diefighting; the split in the Jewish leadership betweenthose who believed in «white resistance)) (aimed atkeeping Jews alive) and the «black resistances(active, violent resistance).

«Forged in Fury» compels comparison betweenthe plight of the Jews of Europe and the plight ofthe Palestinians, for out of the tragedy of the firstwas born the Palestine tragedy and the Arab-Israeliwar.

Referring to the vote in the General Assemblyof November 29, 1947, partitioning Palestine into aJewish and an Arab state, Elkins comments that

83

«Many factors compelled the vote, but the long de-bate offers sufficient evidence that the Assemblytook its decision in significant part at least, as anact of contrition».

Mr. Elkins deplores the fact that none of theWestern countries was willing, after the war, anddespite the horrors that had come to light in Ger-many, to give refuge to large numbers of Jews.

He writes: «In 1945, the armies of the UnitedNations liberated the starving Jews from the deathcamps and the slave labor camps, gathered others infrom the forests and the sewers of the ghettos.Liberated them and gathered them in and showedthe shape of the shining future prepared for themin the new free world—more camps, new camps....Here they were fed and clothed and given medicalcare. They could marry and have children and theycould all, presumably, rote.

But was it really the wish of the world ZionistOrganization that the remnants of the Jewish peopleshould find hospitable homes in friendly countrieswhere they could settle down in comfort, becomeassimilated, perhaps, and unlearn the Zionist direc-tive that the Jews must return to the «PromisedLands, to Palestine?

, Understandably, as a Jew, Mr. Elkins' sympathyis all for the Jews.

So is the sympathy of a non-Jewish reader like

84

myself, up to the point where Mr. Elkins refuses tosee the injustice imposed upon the people of Pales-tine through the United Nations act of «contrition»,which opened up years of suffering and of «rotting»in camps for the Palestinians, who had no part inthe persecution of the Jews.

Mr. Elkins is understandably bitter at theworld's indifference to the plight of the Jews, buthis bitterness runs away with his imagination whenhe charges that Great Britain «became an activeaccessory to Arab aggressions and that «the UnitedNations played a role considerably more passive butequally sordid)) (p. 254)... that «the nations demonst-rated that the vote had been only a ritual aimed atexorcising the ghost of the Jewish dead and atappeasing the uneasy concience of the world byincantations devoid of meaning or purposes.

KMT

And when Mr. Elkins writes about «Arabaggressions in 1948, he overlooks the fact that thePalestinians who fought were people who had livedin the land of Palestine for countless generations,who were as organically part of the country as therocks upon which its cities and villages were built.Far from being helped by Britain or any otherWestern country, the Palestinians were desperatelyand, as it turned out, ineffectually trying to resistthe West's decision to uproot and transplant themto make way for the Jews.

It is strange that Mr. Elkins does not see the

85

irony or sense the danger of Zionist policy in Pales-tine.

From the security of what was so recently thehome of the uprooted Palestinians, the Jews suppor-ted by those at whose hands they suffered so much,are blindly helping to create a nation of desperatepeople, as desperate as the Jews of Europe in theSecond World War.

Like the Jews in Europe, the Palestinians todayare also alone,betrayed by all, including their ownpeople, fighting for survival. They too have learnedthat «no one rescues the defenseless)) that «no nation,as a nation, was moved by conscience, or goodwill,or by public outcry»... at their plight.

In the closing paragraph of «Forged in Fury»Michael Elkins writes: «Men denied justice will,themselves, take however much of it they can andin whatever manner open to them. All men. TheJews not least».

The dismal conclusion one draws from «Forgedin Fury» is that men, all men, the Jews not leastapparently never learn a lesson.

• «Israel: Two Fateful Years, 1967-1969 by NormanBentwich. (London: EIek, 1970) _ Reviewed byG. H. Jansen.

In this small but significant work, a veteranZionist gives expression to a limited degree ofdisillusionment with the policies of Israel after 1967,

and by doing so becomes one more member of agroup of «decent Jews» that is of great usefulnessto Zionist-Israeli propaganda.

Bentwich, an English lawyer, was already anactive Zionist when he was appointed by the Britishas the first attorney general of the Palestine Manda-tory regime. Even by 1920 he had written much insupport of the Zionist case and had produced thevivid comparison of Zionist territorial claims to theskin of a deer which expands or contracts withfeeding or the lack of it. It was Bentwich's aim tofeed the Zionist «deer» as much as possible and thishe did during his term of office in Palestine, andlater on as a tireless and influential lobbyist andpropagandist for Zionism in Labour Party circles inLondon.

Now in his old age, Bentwich evidently ishaving second thoughts about the conduct of theIsraelis, though it must be made clear that hisworries are no more than mere twiches of his poli-tical conscience. Thus he reiterates the arrogantJewish claim that it was «providence» that helpedto bring Israel into existence. He is still a staunchsupporter of the Jewish state and even admires the«chutzpah» or impudence with which the Israelisstole the gunboats from the French naval yards atCherbourg. Hence while he describes Israeli policyas seemingly «harsh» or «inflexible», he does notfavour the return of Arab Jerusalem to Arab so-vereignty, but only that the Holy Places should be

87

put under an inter-religious authority. And whileadmitting that an injustice has been done to theformer inhabitants of Palestine, and that they mustbe paid compensation for their property, he is notprepared to go further than to recommend thatIsrael should accept a part of those seeking repatria-tion «after careful sifting» while «the majority))should be resettled in the Arab countries or the newWorld.

Yet even this strictly limited degree of dove-ishness manifested by someone like Bentwich is mostuseful to the Zionist propaganda effort because itblurs, softens and confuses the hard image of theZionist hawks, without in reality conceding anythingsubstantial or in any way endangering Israel's posi-tion. The Zionist propagandists can claim that notall Zionists are unreasonable when a veteran likeBentwich says that Israel should become a «mixedbinational state», thus obscuring the crucial fact thatwhat Bentwich is talking about is Israel and notPalestine. Israeli or Zionist doves, so long as theyremain Israelis or Zionists, are far more dangerousthan the frankly hawkish Zionist-Israeli.

Bentwich is only the latest of many conscience-stricken Zionists. Qualms of conscience began to befelt very early in the Zionist movement, most no-

88

tably by Ahad Ha-am. Because Ha-am was at oddswith the majority policy of the Zionist congresses,as expounded by Weizmann and later Ben Gurion,and because he advocated a vaguely cultural formof Zionism, it is very often forgotten that he wasnevertheless a Zionist who settled in Palestine, whomade his contribution to the movement, and washonoured by having a street named after him inTel Aviv. Similarly with Arthur Koestler who alsoserved the Zionist cause for many years, and mosteffectively when he wrote his powerfully propa-gandist novel «Thieves in the Night». Only after-doing all this did he withdraw from Zionism. Muchthe same thing seems to be happening to BenGurion. After stamping his own hard, unyieldingimage on Israel, he now professes to be ready togive back almost all captured Arab territory if thatsacrifice would produce a lasting peace. So tooBentwich, after a life-time of Zionist service, nowgives Israel a mild scolding and as a «reasonable»«liberal» Zionist still contributes to the Zionistcause. The repentent Zionist has become a recogni-zable Zionist type.

At any one time Jews seem to adopt threeattitudes towards Zionism. In their youth they canbe non-Zionist or even anti-Zionist; in their vigorousmiddle years they are activist Zionists; and in old

89

age they mature into repentent Zionists. Thus whenAhad Ha-am was repenting, Herzl and later Weiz-inann were active; when Weizmann became repen-tent, Ben Gurion and Buber and Magnes wereactive; when Buber and Magnes began to beat theirbreasts, Ben Gurion and Bentwich were stillpushing ahead; and now that Ben Gurion andBentwich are softening, Dayan is carrying the torch;and one supposes that when Dayan becomes olderand wiser, someone like Ezer Weizmann will bedoing the dirty work.

When dealing with Zionists there is the temp-tation to say that one should be thankful for smallmercies and that any tendency towards repentence,however partial, is to be welcomed. It is, however,possible for repentence to come too late, for thevoice of conscience to speak up only when it canno longer affect the course of events. Such is thecase with Ben Gurion and Bentwich. «Beware ofGreeks bearing gifts» is a well-known saying: Oneshould be even more wary of those Zionists who,having done their bit for the cause, continue to serveit by putting their newly awakened consciences onbelated display.

Bentwich does however make one very pro-found remark which should be taken to heart by allthose who advocate a scholarly «objective» approachto the Palestine problem: «Objectivity about theproblems of Palestine and Israel is a contradictionin terms». •

90

D O C U M E N T S

Discussion of the «Middle East situations by the UNGeneral Assembly, in its 26th session, resulted in a Resolu-tion which expressed appreciation for Egypt's positiveattitude to Jarring's mission, and reaffirmed «that theacquisition of territories by force is inadmissible)) and thatthe territories so occupied by Israel «must be restored)).The full text of the resolution which was adopted inDecember, 1971 is given below.

General Assembly Resolution of December, 1971

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned by the continuation of thegrave situation prevailing in the Middle East, par-ticularly since the conflict of June 1967, which

91

constitutes a serious threat to international peace

and security,

Convinced that the immediate implementationof all the provisions of Security Council Resolution242/1967/ provides for a just and lasting peace in

the Middle East,

Determined that the territory of a state shouldnot be the object of occupation or acquisition byanother state resulting from threat or use of force,which is a basic principle enshrined in the UnitedNations Charter and reiterated in Security CouncilResolution 242 as well as the Declaration of theStengthening of International Security 2734 (XXV),adopted by the General Assembly on 16th December

1970,

Expressing appreciation of the efforts of thecommission of Heads of African States undertakenin pursuance of the OAU Resolution of 23rd June

1971,

Gravely concerned by the continuation ofIsrael's occupation of certain Arab territories since5th June 1967,

Having considered the item entitled «TheSituation in the Middle East»,

92

1. Reaffirms that the acquisition of territoriesby force is inadmissible and that, consequently,territories thus occupied must be restored,

2. Requests the Secretary-General to take thenecessary measures to reactivate the mission of hisSpecial Representative in order to promote agree-ment, and assist efforts, to reach a peace agreementas envisaged in Ambassador Jarring's memorandumof 8th February 1971,

3. Expresses its full support to efforts of theSpecial Representative of the United NationsSecretary-General to implement Security CouncilResolution 242 of 22nd November 1967 and to hispeace initiative of 8th February 1971,

4. Notes with appreciation the positive replygiven by the Arab Republic of Egypt to AmbassadorJarring's initiative for establishing a just and lastingpeace in the Middle East,

5. Calls upon Israel to respond favourably to

Ambassador Jarring's peace initiative of 8th Feb-ruary 1967,

6. Further invites the parties to the MiddleEast conflict to give their full co-operation to the

93

Special Representative of the United NationsSecretary General in order to work out practical

modalities for:

A. The establishment and implementation of mea-

sures «guaranteeing the territorial inviolability

and political independence of every state in the

area»,

B. The definition and implementation of guarantees

for «the freedom of navigation through interna-

tional waterways in the area»,

C. The achievement of a just settlement of the

refugee problem,

7. Requests the Secretary General to reportto the Security Council and the General Assemblyas appropriate, on the progress made in the imple-mentation of the present resolution by the Special

Representative,

8. Requests the Security Council to consider,if necessary, making arrangements under the rele-vant articles of the Charter of the United Nations toensure the implementation of its resolution.

94'Golda, you are beautiful. '

RESISTANCESUBSCRIPTION COUPON

Enclosed please find cheque for

covering a year's subscription

to RESISTANCE (12 issues)

Name

Address

City Country

Mail to :BESISTANCE (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. £ 3.06, L.S. 25.00

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

'

iOn 1st January, every year, people begin a newtenure of life.While we Palestinians begin a new year ofsearching for

See Inside cover