editor of the New York Times, it’s time to exam- ine the facts. It’s almost fifty years since the first decree of the Soviet government was adopted, the Decree on Peace. By this statement, and in all subsequent action, the Soviet Union has put forward its posi- tion not only that the socialist state has no in- tention of waging aggressive war against any people, but that it is possible for states with dif- ferent social systems to live side by side in peace. Was the debate in the meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union to change that fundamental position? Were there propositions being advanced by mem- bers of the Committee that the Soviet Union By playing up stories of hawks and doves in the Kremlin, Western journalists hope to divert attention from the real source of war in the world today — imperialism, and above all, U.S. impe- rialism. | Whose military bases ring the world? Whose intelligence service is working diligently in coun- try after country to prevent the development of democratic movements of the people? Who has almost 500,000 troops in Vietnam and the “pro- mise” of hundreds of thousands more Whose | troops went into the Dominican Republic? No journalistic jargon can cover up the world- wide knowledge that the hawks have the Ameri- can eagle emblazoned on their wings. COMMENT Who are the hawks? he Years oS Press has been notorious through the crea paucing all things to the most simple, sed] ee a Jargon of “journaleese” to sup- all situations at all times. US, Wh ; abil; » When confronted with the growing ‘“‘cre- te ys 28D" b i nae €d people into “doves and hawks”. should launch a war? Even Salisbury in his most People in Canada, ag throughout the world, United shea hawks there certainly are in the speculative account of the “Kremlin hawks and don’t have to fight both U.S. and Soviet hawks, | 2B whe es. doves” doesn’t go quite that far. as Salibury’s tales would imply. What is needed thy these aan American journalist starts apply- No more today than at any time in its history is the end of a situation in which the U.S. hawks | Central C Same terms to the members of the does the Soviet Union intend to start an aggres- get aid and comfort from our government. | the Sier pettee of the Communist Party in sive war; no less today than at any time in his- And it’s in the defeat of the U.S. war hawks Man Union, even such a “distinguished” tory do they render aid to all peoples struggling that the peace and security of all people in the ag p : : : Ae é Harrison Salisbury, assistant managing ° for liberation from colonialism, for social advance. world depends. ew Sey. “V CSter: te” is fuyy N press, at pre- Soyjar 0! Stories distortin tle Bei Position. on the Mid. re fe The most wide- in is enous that the Soviet a Mig dle oraging tension in licy East and that its ‘Rain in this area is di St Israg] is directed iy UeSe wt com BRcties have nothing Viet Un; With the reality. The tile to a has never been . Srael, nor is it now. One of pe tdeed one inch Main principles, itttabig oe has the right we State. nN independent na- lt fol te thas owed from this prin- tapethin th Oviet Union help- lig’ the ger UBited Nations, to Meng “Sision on the estab- “h state 2" independent OV; : Cen: . ‘Union was among weg Israq) qvtties which re- e jure, hn 5 TUlino ,; tet cane bees of Israel ie Nuch th €se facts, how- ty ‘Union ey slander the the: : « Neip tng on gpmPts to cast as- “ital Ve gon a Soviet Union Ut keep . : ant tens aan however, Mey ds a hundreds of ~ Mmates ety citizens, : € nazi death WESTERN PRESS _SLANDERS USSR camps, who were liberated and saved by the Soviet Army. “They also keep silent about the millions of lives given by the Soviet people in the struggle against nazism, which threaten- ed Jews with total extermina- tion. “The Soviet Union, loyal to its policy of respecting the rights of all peoples, small and big, however, cannot remain an indifferent onlooker at.the dan- gerous policy pursued by the Israeli ruling circles ... “. . . the Soviet Union tabled a draft resolution at the United Nations aimed at strengthening peace and security in the Mid- dle East. “The draft resolution calls for condemnation of Israel’s aggres- sive actions and its occupation of parts of Arab territory, for the immediate withdrawal of Is- raeli troops behind the truce line, for compensation by Israel for the damage caused to the Arab countries and, finally, for the Security Council to take steps to eliminate all the conse- quences of the aggression. “This is the position of the Soviet Union; it is clear cut and consistent and is dictated by a sincere desire to normalize the situation in the Middle East and to ensure the legitimate rights of peoples there to live in peace and to territorial integrity.” Alexander Pogodin, Novosti correspondent. CoC eee # le ECCLES Morning Ster Who's talking about Israel's destruction “But, the problem is very reasonably raised, granted the truth of the reactionary and in- terventionist role of Western im- perialism in the Middle East, and the repeated role of Israel as the accomplice of Western imperial- ism, how can there be peace in the Middle East, and what else can Israel do but fight back, when the Arab Governments publicly proclaim their aim to be the ‘destruction of Israel’? Since the Arab aim is declared to be to ‘annihilate’ the two and a half millions of Israel, or ‘drive them into the sea’—and this is how the Arab aim is de- scribed on every side in the Western press and on platforms and in parliament so as to whip up an atmosphere of emo- Arab liberation movement — 1s not Israel justified in using every means or source of support, and every active measure, including, if necessary, a preventive war, to defeat the threat of such a fate, and ought not every civiliz- ed person to support Israel against such a threat? It is worth examining this question, because it is clear that this type of slogan is pure jam for impe- rialism. “For this purpose, in order to assess the evidence more pre- cisely, the first question to ask is: which Arab Government, and when, has used this type of slogan, and with what meaning? Here the answer becomes inter- esting. For the most _blood- thirsty-sounding slogans come from precisely the most reac- tionary Arab rulers whom West- ern imperialism most favors and courts. Thus King Feisal of Saudi Arabia was feasted in London at the beginning of May just before the conflict. He was accorded an interview on the BBC and was asked: ‘What is your policy in relation to Israel.’ He replied, with his character- istic slow cruel smile of a ruler of a regime still reeking of slavery and terror, in three words only: ‘Extermination of Israel’. Did the British Govern- ment or official circles express horror? On the contrary. He was invited to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen, and he was of- fered £134 million worth of arms to add to the £107 million arms supplied last year. This did not prevent Harold Wilson sounding his most solemn sobbing notes a few days later to express his deep concern for Israel. Truly imperialism knows how to wear two faces or to back two oppos- ing horses simultaneously. The reactionary rulers favor such slogans to hide the unpopular character of their regime. “But let us turn to the most responsible spokesmen of the Arab liberation movement, such as President Nasser, for a clearer definition of policy rather than catchwords. According to the Cairo correspondent of the Sun- day Times on June 4 of this year ‘a Western diplomat’ put this question to Nasser: ‘When he speaks of destroying Israel, does he means this literally?’ since ‘the general impression in the West is that, given the chance, he would massacre every single Israeli’. The report con- tinues: ‘According to the diplo- mat, Nasser was surprised at this. By “destroy Israel”, he said, he meant destroy her as a Western - subsidized anti - Arab base in the Middle East.’ And he went on to describe his ‘vision of the ultimate settlement’, in which the refugees would be re- stored as required by the United Nations, ‘Jews would still be the majority in this new Jewish- Arab State’ in Palestine, but it would be a Middle Eastern State not tied to Western imperialism. Yet Nasser is denounced in Western propaganda from Eden to the present day as the ogre, while King Feisal of Saudi Ara- bia is presented as the ‘moder- ate’ more acceptable to the. West.” R. Palme Dutt, Labor Monthly. son July 28, 1967PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 3