ween

Ffforts towards
Middle East peace

By Y. PRIMAKOV

The situation in the Middle
East remains complicated and
tense. Israeli provocations along
the cease-fire lines follow one
another. In September the Israe-
li command started to make such
attacks “synchronously” at all
section of contact with Arab
armies.

These permanent provocations
are accompanied by a whole
series of propaganda-political ac-
tions of the Israeli leadership.
The constant lodging of com-
plaints to the United Nations
Security Council with the United
Arab Republic and other Arab
countries evidently pursues the
aim of preparing public opinion
for the necessity of “preventive”
“defensive” actions on the part
of Israel. Probably with the
same aim in view Dayan, Allon,
Eban and Eshkol hold forth that
the Arab side, allegedly, “does
not show readiness to work for
peace.” With the help of such
speeches the present Israeli lead-
ership wants to influence world
public opinion which more and
more supports the struggle of the
Arab peoples for the restoration
of their rights, trampled on by
Israeli invaders.

The past weeks show particu-
larly clearly that a group of ex-
tremists who are pushing the de-
velopment of events to another
military clash with Arab coun-
tries, has taken the upper hand
in Israel. What aims do they pur-
sue?

Last year’s June aggression of
Israel against its Arab neigh-
bours made it its task first of all
to liquidate the progressive re-

- gimes in the United Arab Repub-
lic and Syria, (It was not accom-
plished.) More than that, despite
a’ number of difficulties the peo-
pies of the U.A.R. and Syria had
to or wi!l have to overcome the
progressive tendency in the de-
velopment of these countries has
become stronger in the past 16
months. This was expressed, in
the growing influence of the
masses, in activisation of the
Arab Socialist Union in the
U.A.R., and in democratic mea-
sures, carried out in the trade
union movement of Syria. With-
in the same 16 months that have
passed since the Israeli attack,
the defences of a number of Arab

countries have been consolida-
ted,

The. stratégic .conception of
this bellicose group was reveal-
ed by Moshe Dayan in his speech
on July 5, 1968, when he stated:
“Two processes are developing
from the beginning of the Zion-
ist movement: increasing the
population and expanding bord-
ers. In this way the people of
Israel grew from 600,000 in 1948
to some 3 million in our days.
But this is not the limit. This
is a process which must con-
tinue: the Israeli people them-
selves will define the borders
of their state.” This extremely
dangerous conception of con-
stant expansion will ultimately
seriously jeopardize the interests
of the Jewish people in Israel.

One of the characteristic fea-
tures of the situation is that the
Israeli rulers show their aggres-
siveness at the time when a num-
ber of Arab states and other
countries are making efforts to
liquidate the consequences of the
conflict. They are striving to
facilitate the mission of the Spe-
cial Representative of the U.N.
Secretary General Jarring, the
aim of which is to help imple-
ment the resolution of the Secu-
rity Council of November 22,
1967.

Many political observers are
now coming to a conclusion that
the mission of this Swedish dip-
lomat, who is conducting talks
with all countries of the region
concerned, is approaching a blind
alley. The cause is clear. The
negative attitude of Israel to the
resolution of the U.N. Security
Council leads to an impasse.
The Arabs, it will be recalled,

- have fully accepted both the re-

solution as a whole and every one
of its clauses. The U.A.R., Jor-
dan and other Arab countries
had a right to expect a similar
step from the Israeli side. But
no step of this kind has follow-
ed.

The recent round of talks
conducted by Jarring has shown
again that the Israeli leaders re-
gard the resolution of the Secu-
‘rity Council only as the ‘“agen-
da” for direct talks with Arab
countries. Serious journalists, in-
cluding those in the West, write
that direct talks are vain dreams
in the present conditions. Arab

states regard this idea as an at-
tempt of the aggressor to dic-
tate to the victims of aggression,
which naturally cannot be ac-
cepted. Perfectly understanding
the non-realisability of direct
talks, Tel Aviv is meanwhile
stubbornly insisting on them.
This conceals Tel Aviv’s evident
intention to frustrate the fulfil-
ment of the resolution, to evade
the obligations imposed on Israel
by the decision of the Security
Council primarily on the with-
drawal of its troops from the
occupied Arab lands.
’ This position was once more
confirmed by the speech of Is-
raeli Foreign Minister A, Eban
at the present session of the U.N.
General Assembly. He put for-
ward a “new program” in which
everything is very old. As before
it contains not a-single word
about Israel’s intention to fulfil
the decision of the Security
Council, and concentrates atten-
tion on the demand of direct
talks with the Arabs. ~

In an attempt to justify their
policy the ruling circles of Is-
rael usually put forward several
“arguments.”

The first ‘argument’: the ac-
ceptance by Israel of the reso-
lution of the U.N. Security Coun-
cil will allegedly create a situa-
tion fraught with danger for
this state, because withdrawal of
Israeli troops, Israel asserts, will

not be properly “compensated” ~~

for by the actions of the oppo-
site side. The idea of a plan-
schedule on implementing the
U.A.R. resolution of the U.N.
Security Council advanced .by
the. U.A.R., is a good answer to
this so-called. argument. The
schedule is meant to coordinate,
as far as time is concerned, the
adoption of all demands of the
resolution without exception. A
view has been expressed that if
Israel agrees to withdraw its
troops behind the line of June 5,
1967, a statement about termi-
nation of the state of war with
Israel, existing for 20 years,
could already be made at the
first stage of the withdrawal.
The second “argument”: the
Israeli leadership is trying to
create the impression that the
U.A.R, wants to evade the ques-
tion of freedom of navigation in
the Suez Canal. Today, however,

only the presence of Israeli
troops on the bank of the Suez
Canal hampers the restoration of
navigation along this important
seaway. As far as the passing
of Israeli ships along the canal
is concerned, Cairo, suggests that
this question should be com-
bined with the solution of the
problem of Palestine refugees
who, at different times, begin-
ning with 1948 and ending with
1968, were forced to leave their
homes. The raising of the ques-
tion by the U.A,R. on combining
in the solution of these. two
problems is quite just and legi-
timate,

The third “argument”: Tel
Aviv representatives constantly
state that normalization of the
situation in the Middle East is
allegedly hampered by arms de-
liveries to Arab ¢ountr ies,

_ which, as is known, have to re-

pulse constant provocations on
the part of Israel. It is obvious
that Tel Aviv passes in silence
the fact that these deliveries
take place at a time when the
imperialist circles of the U.S.A.,

Britain, and the Federal Repub- ©

lic of Germany supply Israel
with arms used in military opera-
tions against Arab states. (No
further than October 9, the UPI
reported that the White House
had instructed United States
State Secretary Dean Rusk “to
start talks on selling Israel F-4
Phantom super-sound jet planes.)

In the end the solution of the
question of restricting arma-
ments is hampered by the Is-
raeli position of refusing to ac-
cept the November 22, 1967, re-
solution of the Security Council.
At a press conference in the So-
viet Foreign Ministry on Septem-
ber 25 it was made clear that
the question of restricting arma-

.ments could be agreed upon

with the states concerned of the
given region after the Israeli
troops are removed from the
Arab . territories. occupied by
them, . :

ey

There can be no. doubt, that

the Israeli rulers could not
sue the course of underm

the cause of peace in thé ~
dle East without direct sup!
on the part of the United S#

Certain circles in the U.S.A: i
only connive at the ageres
activity of the Israeli leadef® “it
but skilfully kindle this acti i
trying to preserve the tens”
existing in the Middle East

order to have a chance of N
ing in troubled waters.” Ne
long ago; for instance, The th
York Times and some. a
American newspapers publis’
material which they preseh
as the number of the plan

dule now being considered '

number of the delegations 4
UN General Assembly. This Io,
like it was done purposefl
The aim is to complicate .
talks, to raise a hue an ;
around them. Apparently thé ;
ditional millions, which a
groups of American oil bus!”
particularly Texas oil indus

lists, are earning on the delay
the Middle Eastern crisis, (
siderably influence the A”
can position, Be

True, there are rather infld
tial groups of people in the fs
among whom Israeli adventu®
causes serious fears. But ef
those in the West who cal
derstand the dangerous pers?
tive of the present trend of
velopments in the Middle
only state their views aD
not show any readiness tO u
concrete actions for the sak
peace in this region.

Soviet Foreign Minister A
Gromyko, speaking at the
General Assembly, again Wé
of the dangerous situation 1?
Middle East. His speech 10!
a broad positive response i#
Arab world. F

The policy of Israeli inv4 r
must be put an end to, only
will a real opportunity; arisé
settling the Middle East’
and of creating a situatio?
which all states of this ref
could live and develop free