Immediately after the June war, when the shooting stopped and cease fire was proclaimed by the Security Council, and accepted by Egypt and the other Arab States, everyone in Israel was joyous and triumphant. Everyone thought that everything Zionism had achieved hitherto was fully consolidated and secured, and the Zionist enterprise had thus become safe and able to expand for generations. The Arab States, after such a crushing defeat, seemed to have been forced to their knees, the backbone of their armies had been broken, and could never raisetheir heads for decades, and had no other alternative but to come to terms with victorious Israel, grant her official recognition and accept peace with her on her conditions.
The Israeli Minister of Defence, General Dayan, declared immediately after the ceasefire that he was waiting for a telephone call from the Arab States, asking for peace. As for the Palestinians, no one even thought of them. But the telephone of General Dayan remained silent. The heads of the Arab States met in Khartoum and declared their three "No's":
No recognition of Israel No peace with her No negotiation.
Enter Mr. Peaceful Co-Existence With the help of the USSR, Egypt began to rebuild her army. The Palestinians appeared on the stage, and began their commando warfare. But the Zionist rulers of Israel turned to their American boss, and received more arms and equipment, especially Phantom jets to crush the (The Israeli Socialist Organisation [Matzpen) has recently issued a statement on the current situation in the Middle East. In printing it below The Red Mole declares its solidarity with the comrades of Matzpen, who in an extremely difficult situation have managed to keep the spirit of revolutionary Marxism alive in Israel and who by their very existence pose a challenge to the Zionist state structure./ AGAINST THE PLOT After six days and three years of incessant war, the Great Powers have reached a joint formula on a "political settlement" in the [Middle East] region. Many people regard this as a decisive turning point and essential change in the totality of political relations throughout the Arab East. Many people are pinning their hopes on a new political settlement between Israel and the Arab States, and cheer the [prospective] settlement with faith and enthusiasm.
The Israeli Socialist Organisation rejects the Rogers plan for two main reasons: 1. It is a plan which is meant to freeze the existing status quo in the Arab East, in order to prevent the development of a revolutionary movement that would aim at liquidating the reactionary regimes going well beyond Nasserism, towards the expropriation of oil and [other] natural resources from the imperialist monoThe Red Mole 15th September 1970 Page 2 new Egyptian Army in the bud and prevent it from being rebuilt. As for the Palestinian commandoes, the Israeli generals despised them They thought and declared that they had no real backbone, no mass support, and they were no more than a handful of mercenaries, who would degenerate and disintegrated and be easily crushed within a few months, if not weeks.
But the Egyptian Army was not prevented from being rebuilt, and the Palestinian commandoes were not crushed. The fight on the Suez front was escalated, the commando warfare was further spread, the number of casualties mounted, and General Dayan admitted that he had no answer to the guerrilla warfare, and that the Israelis should learn to live with it for decades. Then the Israeli Air Force began to bomb Egypt deep in the rear, intending to break the morale of the Egyptians and force them to accept peace on Israeli terms.
In the meantime the expenses of the war were mounting. The deficit in Israel's balance of payments, which had been until the beginning of the war about $500 million, annually reached more than $1,000 million in 1969. The expenses of the war, as estimated by the Israeli Minister of Finance, reached $2.5 million per day.
The "six day" war entered its third year without a prospect of ending, and with guerrilla warfare spreading. The number of casualties on the Suez front mounted, and economic conditions worsened. Doubts began to spread espe cially among the young, those in the secondary schools who were about to be recruited into the army. In the last week of April 1970, 57 pupils of secondary schools sent a letter to the Prime Minister protesting against the policy of the government, and its refusal to allow Goldman to go to Cairo, saying that until then they believed that they would serve in the army for polies, towards breaking the power of the landowning and capitalist classes throughout the 2. It is a plan which is based on the denial of the national, political and human rights of the Palestinian Arab people.
The Rogers plan, which is nothing but the American interpretation of the Security Council resolution of 22nd October 1967, intends to safeguard the stability of the Zionist regime and the reactionary regimes in the Arab world; to guard them against the Palestinian movements which play havoc with their plans, undermine [their] stability and incessantly ferment the whole region. Similarly, Nasserism-which hopes to strengthen itself as a result of the [Rogers] plan-is also bankrupt. It attempts to build itself up on a new corrupt bourgeois oligarchyagainst the masses of workers and peasants-and on neutralism in the international arena, indulging in a diplomatic game between the Great Powers. This regime cannot save Arab society; rather than encourage the development of that society, it actually retards it.
Those who pin their hopes on the [Rogers] bian beevino marit can lede to normausin Israeli-Arab relations, or to a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab people, are backing a non-starter. A lasting peace can only be based on liquidating the Zionist-colonial three years and fight because there was no other alternative. But now after the Goldman affair it seemed that there was an alternative which was ignored by the government, and therefore they doubted the necessity of fighting a continuous war which has no aim, while the government was pursuing a policy of ignoring the opportunities tor peace The Institute of Social Studies in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem organises public opinion polls every few months. One of the questions appearing every time has been: "What do you find most disturbing in the present situation?". In February 1969, 22% answered: the Military Situation. In December 1969, 44% answered: the Military Situation. In March 1970, 55% gave the same answer.
The military and economic situation continued to deteriorate. Thanks to the Soviet SA missiles, the Israeli air bombing of Egypt proved to be very dangerous.to the Israeli Air Force and consequently stopped, and the fight on the Suez front reached a peak. Israeli casualties reached 30-40 a month, which was a very high proportion in comparison to the Israeli population of 2.5 million The military threat posed by the missiles has been exaggerated. No one seriously thinks that the Egyptian Army can retake Sinai with SA missiles. But the appearance of those missiles has made the Israeli Air Force-the backbone of the Israeli military power and the pride of the Israeli Army virtually ineffective, and thus losing its prestige.
Pressures of United States Imperialism In such a situation the dependence of Israel on American imperialism, military and economically, became more evident. Declarations of government ministers and articles in the press made it look as if the whole fate and future of Israel depend upon getting more and more American jets, and a variety of air-to-ground missiles capable of destroying the Egyptian SA mIssHe SITe.
And now, in such circumstances, came the so-called "Rogers proposals". Washington and Moscow appear to have reached some agreement on the issue of the Middle East. Whatever their differing interests, they both share a joint one: to stop revolutionary initiative and action from spreading throughout the Arab world, which might endanger not only Zionism, and the Arab States, but the whole global status quo favourable to both American imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy. It is for this reason that Nixon pressurises Israel to withdraw, and Kosygin pressurises Nasser to reach an agree ment with israel. The partners to the alobal status quo wish to impose their "solution" before the situation gets out of their hands.
The Israeli Zionist rulers, in spite of their desire to keep what they achieved by military power, are not in a position to oppose a solution dictated by the U.S. Without American economic and military aid, the whole Zionist structure would collapse like a house of cards. They may try to sabotage and manoeuvre; but .......and from Israel character of the Israeli community on the one hand, and on breaking the anti-popular Arab regimes on the other, on an absolute equality between the Jewish people in Israel and the Palestinian Arab people in all matters of rights pertaining to the territory of Palestine. Such peace cannot be achieved by pressure of Big rowers, out by a popular struggie for over throwing the nationalist regimes in both national camps.
Those who have not learned from th experience of the Ben-Gurion/Abdallah secret agreement and of the 1949 armistice agreements, will now have to experience a new and less lasting version of the same phenomenon.
It may be that the forces which back the [Rogers] plan, including also the USSR and the Communist Parties that follow her, are suffi ciently great and powerful to impose it-even at the price of liquidating (politically and physi cally) the Palestinian and revolutionary Arab elements that would not accept it. But this much is certain: true peace will not be achieved through inter-government agreement trampling on the rights of an entire people.
Those who hope, for a long calm will soon be disappointed. The Palestinian wound can only be cured in a revolutionary and human way, by the equality of rights of all peoples of the Middle East. Also, the revolutionary moveit would all be to try and get more American aid, and to catch as catch can, that is to say to keep as much of the advantage they gained in the "six day" war, and to maintain their prestige in the eyes of the population. Two years ago 77% of the population thought the government was pursuing "a very good policy" in dealing with the situation. A year ago 82% thought the same. At the end of 1969 the number dropped to 69% and at the beginning of 1970 it rose to 77%. But now, as Walter Schwartz writes in the Observer 23rd August 1970, "The contrast between private passions and cabinet decisions is a symptom of the schizophrenia that has afflicted the Israelis since last month." "With part of their minds they know that President Nasser's agreement to the Rogers proposals could turn out to be the biggest breakthrough towards peace in their history. But the transfer of missiles within hours of the ceasefire brought out fears that go deeper than the immediate situation."
A minister of the cabinet said: "The feeling in the country is the same as in the days before the six day war". Those jokes of May-June 196 expressing desperate hopes in the language of mock despair, are going round again. Like the one about the huge sign above the gates of Lydda airport: "The last to leave should turn off the lights."
The Gahal party walk out of the Cabinet in protest against the acceptance of the Rogers proposals, and its formation of a national com mittee to resist withdrawal, which claims the support of 38 members of Parliament, can hardly be considered as more than a manoeuvre to save face and disclaim the responsibility of withdrawal.
The Arab Revolution Will Continue But even if the Zionist Israeli rulers succeeded i sabotaging a settlement, it would be very hard for them to keep their hold on the people by claiming there is no other afternative but to fight. Everyone but blockheads and diehards would see that there was an alternative, that was intentionally sabotaged. Whatever the immediate outcome of the Soviet-American manoeuvres, one thing is certain: they will not solve any of the problems facing the broad masses in the Middle East. Israel will not have peace as long as it retains its Zionist character and its ties with imperialism. The Palestinian masses will not achieve their liberation as long as they separate their cause from the socialist revolution of the entire Arab world. The Pales tine problem is a product of imperialism and will only disappear with imperialism. The only way to defeat imperialism is in a socialist revolution which mobilises the millions of workers and peasants throughout the Arab world. If the revolutionaries succeed in mobilising those millions they will defeat imperialism together with its agents and allies; if they do not, they will suffer another defeat.
A. Said ment in the Arab East-which draws consider able strength from the Palestinian strugglecannot be shackled for long.
Since the war we were against conquests, and now we continue to demand an immediate total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from all the territories conquered in June 1967, based on the principle that a nation that oppresses another cannot be free.
We call the masses of workers, peasants, youth and intellectuals in Israel to struggle against Zionism and imperialism.
We support the revolutionary struggle which is going on in the Palestinian camp and in the Arab world against the Zionist regime, against imperialism and against the reactionary Arab regimes, for a social revolution which will guarantee a true peace between the Israeli people and the Arab people-without conquerors and conquered, without expropriators and expropriated, without oppressors and oppressed, without humiliators and humiliated The Israeli Socialist Organisation (Matzpen) P.O. Box 28061, Tel Aviv.
P.O. Box 2234, Jerusalem. (The above is a translation of a bi-lingual (Hebrew-Arabic] leaflet issued by the ISO in Israel.)
A root cause of the 1926 miners' strike The second factor, after introdueing the discredited as a Union..."(2) To reiterate an