Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From Labor Action, Vol. 14 No. 15, 10 April 1950, p. 2.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
The bright rays of peace in Palestine flickered for a while but have, quickly died down.
There were reports that a treaty between Israel and Jordan had been initiated and would be signed in a few days. It was to be a five-year non-aggression pact that would ease the road to a final peace treaty. Rumors had it that the treaty provided for Israel’s recognition of Abdullah’s control of Arab Palestine; mutual recognition of Israeli and Jordanian rule over their respective portions of Jerusalem; access to the Mediterranean for Jordan; and opening of a route to Mount Scopus for Israel in return for a route to Bethlehem for Jordan.
The broadcasts of the Arab language radio stations in Ramallah and Cyprus gave real credence to these reports as did the actions and intimations of Israeli diplomatic officials.
The U.S. State Department could not hide its glee and even the British Foreign Office let its pleasure be known. The U.S. is pushing for a stabilized Near East that can be organized into a “strong” bloc capable of resisting Russian expansion. Peace and the development of a modicum of industry are essential. Peace is needed so that the arms supplied by the U.S. will not be squandered in useless local squabbles – useless to the U.S. It is also needed as a precondition for gaining the acceptance of this policy by American voters in general and. American Jewish voters in particular.
While working for stability the U.S. (as opposed to Britain) is trying to prevent the emergence of one country as THE power in the Near East, and is playing the old diplomatic shell game of balance of power. The victory of Israel in the recent fighting had, in the opinion of American imperialists, upset the balance. Anglo-American munitions factories are now shipping large quantities of arms to the Arabs and small quantities to Israel. Acheson hinted that should the balance tip the other way the U.S. would supply Israel.
The expected treaty did not materialize. The first explanations were that the treaty had been delayed. The Jordanian cabinet had resigned and Abdullah sought a cabinet that would push for a quick treaty. The incumbents were reported to favor going slow in order to mollify sections of Jordan’s rulers and the rank-and-file Palestinian refugees who opposed a treaty. The king could not form a new government and the treaty was reported delayed until after the parliamentary elections in April. These elections will include Arab portions of Palestine. It is felt that these elections will give Abdullah a show of popular support for a treaty not only among his own tribes but also among the advanced Palestinian Arabs.
Then came the meeting of the Council of the Arab League. There was talk of expelling Jordan for dealing with Israel. The charge was enlarged to include complicity even during the war period. The opposition against Abdullah is led by Egypt, the strongest single Arab country and the .leader against Abdullah, “Greater Syria” and unity among other Arabian countries.
The action taken by the council was to invite representatives from the “government” of Western Palestine, headed by the grand mufti. Jordan is now boycotting those sessions attended by its rival for rule over Western Palestine Arabs. This action of the league was foreshadowed by the Egyptian declaration against the unity of Syria and Iraq. Labor Action has been the only paper that has pointed out that the wording of the statement was designed to include the mufti’s “government” which is now “functioning” in Egypt.
This “recognition” may foreshadow an attempt by the Arab League to recognize the mufti’s government as ruler of ALL Palestine, including the area held by Israel.
Another resolution passed by the council was to forbid any member to make a separate peace, economic or political treaties with Israel without consulting the other member states. Jordan was obliged to vote FOR this resolution.
The net result is that peace is delayed indefinitely.
These events are not part of the calculated policy of Israeli diplomats. They have always been in favor of a modus vivendi with Egypt because it is in control of the Suez, is the most industrialized Arab country and is in favor of keeping the Arab states Balkanized. The Labor government of Israel placed all its hopes on power politics and completely ignored ANY action or even statements to build up peace or pro-Israeli sentiment among the oppressed workers and peasants of the Arab countries.
At the same time, it had no program that could draw to it the more far-sighted nationalists of the Near East who are seeking a road to unification and democratization of the area.
The Israeli labor movement was and is in a position to do this by aiding the creation of an independent socialist movement in Arab countries and extending the hand of brotherhood to them. The second task could have been accomplished by advocating some form of Near East confederation. Instead, the Mapai (Israeli’s dominant labor party) chose to rely exclusively on “diplomacy” – and the worst, kind of diplomacy. By now it should be obvious to the Mapai that without a mass demand for peace – or still worse, in the face of popular opposition to peace in the Arab states – real peace is far off.
The attitude of the other labor party in Israel, the Mapam, is different, but equally fallacious. They too had hoped for peace with Egypt, but unlike Mapai were opposed to a treaty with Abdullah, even as a second best.
The anti-Abdullah position of the Mapam is not taken as a result of consideration of Near East problems, but as a result of Mapam’s position on world politics. Mapam urges support of Russian “peace efforts.” Abdullah is a puppet of England; Russia is violently opposed to England; ergo, Mapam is violently opposed to Abdullah.
The prospect of the signing of a treaty with Abdullah, which would have broken the Arab bloc and led to treaties with other Arab countries, was fought by Herut and Mapam. Mapam is not, however, a slavish follower of the Russian line, like the CP. In relation to Jerusalem, its attempt to be pro-Russian and to be the best nationalists has led to a strange position. It demands annexation of the Jewish section to Israel and raises the demand for the maintenance of the “unity of Jerusalem,” which in effect means incorporating 100,000 Arabs in the Old City into Israel against their will.
Now the Mapam has developed a new line. It is opposed to peace treaties with ANY Arab governments. The so-called realists of Mapam, who argue that the Third Camp position is unrealistic, are now in favor of postponing ALL peace until the time when the Stalinists will be in control of the Arab countries. “No pact with Abdullah or other puppet rulers of the Middle East; no regional agreements, but rather the alliance of those democratic forces now rising in the Middle East.” (PZL Newsletter, Feb. 1) It is no secret that even the non-Stalinists in Mapam “realistically” explain that the only existing “democratic” forces among the Arabs are the Stalinists.
It is small wonder that such a distortion of the Brest-Litovsk idea and its subjection to the necessities of a foreign imperialist bloc has not been received well. The road to peace lies through negotiating with the existing governments; utilizing their differences; but at the same tipne recognizing that the ultimate power lies with the people, the workers and peasants, and by putting them into motion, really effective pressure for peace can be put on the rulers.
Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 26 January 2024