= ee ee OS Ah || Wag iP Years after the 1956 N ao that Anthony Lesson se tis book “No End , ations’ emer i : gency yy. iear thar ey Ptian soil makes Mn the tes they still have to 1, ype iN of 1956. Opt Wal j Uest for this with- yr Matlike goer ted as paineuina Mie to resp V2 it does is (Peg , Ver 7 € the position, Th Pefore ike which exist- an = s Pr ‘Went on to de- Or me Since ehecing than at the Suez crisis of . ““Dhac; . ce op ed that“. the People, Can be settled be be bermeentict. Nor can IP hey eas Scully Settled by @ (Me. Such , UStice arrange- i nt an j a Settlement may i) This. of Ediate full-scale ’ monet ese is prefer- 1M Mio, Menta: at best it would Mane nt ' ght ok solution can only Y a funda- gE lhe ‘Ympathy An Israeli pol- Striy; 'Y for a tA to be Vings of th nd support ‘ Mo, Wo Masters ; . Arab peo- He © i Ud in tj M their own Hh eal “a y mae result ina Wnty. th ‘ude towards Hp 8) : t e@ ( ig iy Pert of the Arab Ons f, WOuld Or the Create the es Security of Is- CRISIS IN MIDDL rael, the maintenance of lasting peace and social progress for all the people in the Middle East. The main reason why the Is+ raeli government is able to per- sist in its policy is because the real architect of this policy is U.S. imperialism. Since World War Two, U.S. imperialism has been scheming to replace British and French imperialism in the Middle-East. The stakes are high: over two- thirds of the rich oil resources of the world are there. To achieve this aim, U.S. imperialism does everything in its power directly, and indirectly through the gov- ernment of Israel, to prevent the establishment of independent, progressive, stable governments in the Arab world. U.S. imperialist policy in the Middle East is essentially the same as its policy in Vietnam and south east Asia, i.e., to halt the national and social liberation movements of the former colo- nial people. In the final analysis the main guilt for the crisis in F EAST the Middle East rests with U.S. imperialism in its role as world policeman. A peaceful solution of the conflict between Israel and the Arab world would under- mine the aims of U.S. imperial- ism, that is why it keeps the Middle East. crisis at a boiling point to facilitate its sinister aims. Sr er It is worth recalling the story of the foreigner who asked an Arab for permission to leave a nail in his house. The Arab agreed. The next day the for- eigner returned to find out if the nail is still there. “Of course it’s there,” the Arab said. ‘Well, - let’s drive it into the wall to make sure.” And the next day the foreigner was back again: “I've come to guard my nail.” He came back the third day. This time accompanied by soldiers. They took over the house and the Arab had to sleep in the street. This story is very instructive. The Arab people will not allow anyone to drive them out of their homes. 4 It lies in the genuine endeavor by both sides to enable Israelis and Arabs to coexist peacefully on thé basis of mutual equal rights. The Israeli generals were greatly encouraged in their threats against Syria by the fa- vorable attitude of the govern- ments of Britain and the U.S. It was not by chance that the air attacks upon Syria came soon after the visit of three of- ficial U.S. envoys to Israel, the visit of the Israeli foreign minis- ter (Abba Eban) to Britain, and then (under U.S. sponsorship) ‘to South Vietnam. After the air attacks on Syria the Israeli vice-minister of se- curity went to the U.S. for fur- . ther arms purchases. Together with the big ad- vances in Egypt in recent years in transforming its industry and agriculture in a socialist direc- tion, similar steps have been taken recently in Syria whose progressive government includes a Communist. More than 100 trading and in- dustrial enterprises were taken over by the government in 1965, including .oil distributing con- cerns like Socony Vacuum, Esso and Shell. By the end of 1965 more than 80 percent of Syria’s industrial output was under state ownership. New trade agreements were - made with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Trade with the Soviet Union increased from £1 million (Syrian pounds) in 1955 to £100 million in 1965. Last year Syria embarked on her second five-year plan—for 1966- 70. _ British and U.S. political stra- tegy is not simply pro-Israel and anti-Arab. Its aim is to split the ranks of the Arab Liberation movement. It supports the Arab monarch (Hussein of Jordan and Feisal of Saudi Arabia), both of whom are equally opposed to the progressive developments in Egypt and Syria. It is more than mere coinci- dence that King Feisal was be- ing feted in London while Syria was being attacked, and the Arab peoples in Aden and Ye- men fighting for their liberation. The great political tragedy of the Middle East is the reaction- ary policy of successive Israeli governments, which has served as an instrument of imperialism in its resistance to the Arab struggle for freedom. In contrast, the Soviet Union, while recognizing the existence of the State of Israel, has always supported the just struggle of June 9, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 9 “e@_ BUENOS AIRES: the Arabs. This was made clear on May 14; when a joint decla- ration was made before the re~ turn of an Egyptian delegation which had visited the Soviet Union: “They emphatically condemn- ed United States aggression against the Vietnamese people, the provocation of the imperial- ists and their agents against Sy- ria and Yemen, and the aggres- sive actions of Israel against the Arab countries, and they ex- pressed their support for the le- gitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestine Arabs.” The Arab peoples know the Soviet Union has always made a consistent stand for their just demands. This was recognized even in the Sunday .Telegraph . when Eric Downton, its corres- pondent in Beirut, remarked: “It is important to remember that Egyptians and other Arabs see America and Britain as. the supporters of Israel and the So- viet Union as their true friend.” What he did not make clear was that the Soviet Union is also the true friend of the people of Israel (Jews and Arabs) in contrast to the attitude of the Israeli government, which thrcat- ens the interests and lives of both. Britain and U.S. political stra- tegy is not only to support Is- raeli aggression, but to bolster up the Arab monarchs and oil sheiks in the Middle East. This is also a serious. chal- lenge to the whole labor and progressive movement. While recognizing the State of Israel, it is essential to support the struggle for Arab liberation and exert pressure for a real lasting peace in the Middle East. Only in this way can the world learn the lesson of the disastrous 1956 Suez invasion. “Flowers for your lady friend?” :