political axis of Zionist practice.
Zionist foreign policy has been conditioned by these basic facts. To survive as a state founded on the eviction of the native inhabitants, wluch in turn provokes hatred among the Arab masses and stimulates their anti-imperialist potential, Israel is compelled to rely on imperialist support and to make itself an instrument for impenalism against the Arab revolution. It must also seck imperialist support because of its cconomic univiability. Thus, it carried out the Sinai campaign of 1956 (against the nationalisation of the Suez Canal): It supported the French in Algeria; it supported the South Vietnamese government; it gave military assistance to Ethiopia; it recognised the Chilean junta, and so on, Economically and structurally, the Zionist state has been incorporated into the world imperialist system, Each of the Arab-Israeli wars has been aimed primarily against revolstionary ferment in the Arah world: Nasserism in 1956, Syrian radicalism in 1967 and today. and the Palestinian resistance from 1967 up to today. And conversely, between Israel and the reactionary Arab regimes there has always been a tacit accord, symbolised, for example, by Tel Aviv's threats to invade Jordan if the regime there 1s ovetIhrown.
Thus, Israel is a state that can survive in the Middle East only through military terror. UNCHAINED ENEMY Israel's relation to the Arab revolution is very clear: Zionism is the unchained enemy of the popular masses, whose awakening could favours Israel. The question is more complex in relation to Israei and the reactionary Arab leaders, who are basically favourable to the stacus quo (since Israel also protects their own stabilty ), but are forced from below to raisc the level of their anti-Zionism to win over the 48346303 This is what explains the ambiguity of the positions of these regimes, which is reflected in the current war. The Syrian and Egyptian leaders are fighting for the implementation of the UN resolution, that would restore the territories conquered by Israel in 1967 hur would also recognise the right of Israel to exist as a Zionist state.
COLONIAL ENCLAVE As an imperialist bridgehead and a colonial enclave, Isracl muat be combated by all revolutionists, In the global context, Cairo's and Damascus's struggle against Tel Aviv is an Integral part of the freedom struggle of oppressed third world peoples, oven though the regimes in question are reactionary and pettyNamibia is in the news again. This time because of the public floggings in Ovamboland-the arid, empty bush area on the frontiers of the Portuguese colony of Angola, which South Africa's ruling class has designated as the "homeland' of the 300,000 Ovambo people. The crime for which this tedieval punishment was ordered was the refusal of young Ovambos to use the name "South-West Africa" instead of Namibia. They also refuse to accept the apartheid system imported from the Republic of South Africa. For them, the whole of Namibia ,is their country, and the people of the other tribes-the Damaras, the Hereros, the Okavangos and the Tswanas are their countrymen. The Ovambos are among the most militant fighters aguinst white rule and imperialist exploitation in Southern Africa. In December 1971-January 1972 they paralysed the country's economy by going on strike. It is because of this that the repression in Ovamboland is more savage than in any other part of apartheid-ruled Southern Africa. The reigi of terror is coordinated by Chiel Flemon Elitas, who was appointed to his office by the government in Pretoria.
The 'right to rule this former German colony was originally granted to South Africa by the old League of Nations, In 1966, under pressure from the African and Asian states, the United Nations voted to terminate this mandate. But the South African government samply ignored the decision.
Since then the United Nations has maintained a 'dialogue" with the South African regime. But as a representative of the South West Africa People's Organisation (SWAPO) recently told the UN Committee on Decolonelisation: "The niceties of drawing root diplomacy are a luxury that SWAPO cannot afford.., Weare against any attemp to foster false hopes that the South African government can be pensuaded to withdraw its repressive administrative appara tes from Namibia through dialogue which is designed to achieve but one specific purpose: overcoming South Africa's glohal inolatton... The Namibian people are atready bearing the main brunt for their liberation. The year 1966 marked the initiation of armed struggle in our country. The change from peaceful sapplication to insurrectional struggle was a histone turn in our people's struggle. •Armed resistance is the scaffolding of our strug de. Dur arned combatants have learned invaluable strategie lessons through concrete experionce during the last six years, so that they have now acquired an impressive capacity to inflict serious blows upon the South African troops of colonial occupation. •While the armed struggle constitutes the key aspect of our strugele, it is not the only impor tant aspect. It has come to he linked to the rapidly devcloping political struggles of the masses in South Africa, of which labour unrest Beginning of general strike, December 1971-workers refuse to leave Katutura compound for work and mass demonstrations, demanding an end to terror and oppression, are important dimensions While the urban workers have retained their militant stance towards the occupying state and its international monopoly supporters, the peasants also have marched on district and regional offices of the puppet chiefs and other colonial agents in Namibia.
Namibia will be treed not by resolutions passed in New York but by the revolt of its black slaves, and the Ovambos will play a Icading role in rallying these forces which will one day overthrow white minority rule. GEORGE CUNVIN
Red Weekly