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