(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Conductor:
The difficult peace
June 17
The Norwegian press has played a pitiful role during the war in the Middle East. Instead of guiding the origin of the conflict, the press has more or less consciously misled the public. The result was that we experienced a mood wave in favor of one of the parties to the conflict. As a consequence, such an attitude would not have been harmless if we had not found ourselves at such a safe distance from the center of events, and could almost say that we were happy outside of it all.
The lack of responsibility does not become less serious for that reason. Now, however, some newspapers, because of the Israeli territorial requirements, have thought something. We think it's smarter. One cannot overlook the fact that in this war there are at least two parties, and that it is not so easy here that one of the parties can be stamped, while the other is acquitted of guilt and responsibility. Our task now is not without reservations to support one of the parties to the war, but to soberly analyze the causes of the war and do our best to have them removed.
The image created by a threatening and superior Arab world against the small and peaceful Jewish people in battle for their existence no longer holds. The reality is more complicated than that. Today, with the exception of Turkey, Israel is the strongest military factor in the Middle East. This fact, combined with an unwise policy, can cause the causes of the conflict to be amplified and made permanent. To avoid the Middle East war becoming a tradition that is repeated every ten years, the primary causes of conflict must now be sought to be eradicated as long as possible. Norway and other Scandinavian countries enjoy great goodwill in Israel. This is due not least to the close contact between the Nordic and Israeli labor movement, and the frequent visits by Nordic politicians and journalists to the country. This goodwill must be used right now to get the Israeli victory lords to mind, instead of concentrating on territorial demands at the expense of neighboring states, to actively do away with the root causes of the conflict. It is certainly no easy matter. But one thing is for sure. Today, Israel is doing a great bear service by supporting politicians such as Moshe Dayan and Ben Gurion and others who more or less concede the establishment of a Greater Israel at the expense of poor Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian Arabs. If Israel, as it unfortunately seems today, places demands on free shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba and Arab recognition of its state, it will, by all accounts, help make the war permanent. It will open up to very bleak perspectives. For Israel, it can hardly endlessly survive as a garrison in the middle of a hostile Arab world, which, after all, is also modernizing and evolving, albeit slowly. The causes of the conflict must be effectively attacked with the negotiating peace that we hope will come, otherwise the ground will only be prepared for new unrest in the future. It is highly questionable that Prime Minister Eskhol's earlier assurances that Israel did not aim for territorial expansions have so quickly been forgotten, and that Moshe Dayan's revengeful statements at the Wailing Wall now stand out as the most representative. If Scandinavian politicians in today's situation can win a hearing in Tel Aviv, they should concentrate on warning against the line that is now trying to trump.
In Norway At times, there seems to be an almost moving belief in what humanitarian aid can accomplish. Whether both we and other nations through the UN or directly contribute to maintaining the Arab refugee's existence, does not mean solving the problems, just postponing it. If Israel wants peaceful coexistence with the Arab countries, it is necessary for Tel Aviv to recognize the existence of a number of deplorable facts, which must also be held responsible there. The refugee problem is not solved unless Israel recognizes the right of the Palestinian Arabs to return to their country. Whether, for practical reasons, it is impossible to receive them all: Recognize their right to proper compensation for the injustice that has befallen them. Through the United Nations, Norway and other nations can help Israel fulfill its obligations in this field, thus removing one of the primary causes of the conflict. Israel must also give the Arabs who currently live in the country full economic rights, not just formal political rights, which in their hopeless minority position enjoy very little.
One of the preconditions for lasting peace is that the sharp divide between developed Israel, which for its construction receives billions from Jewish organizations in the United States and Western Europe, and the capital-hungry and underdeveloped Arab world is gradually erased. […] The United States' role in this game is fundamental, although it has not always been so clearly expressed in the Norwegian press. Worrying about the further development is the following that was recently printed in the leadership position in the New York Times:
"Like the Soviet Union, the United States faces a dilemma: How can its obligations to Israel be reconciled with the financial investments at stake in the Arab countries and US interests in the oceans adjacent to them.
US officers have drawn two military conclusions from what has happened in the Middle East: The sixth US Navy in the Mediterranean, now being challenged by Soviet naval vessels, must be maintained and strengthened, the US and UK exposed to hostile Arabs' attitude and possibly loss of Aden, should launch its hitherto foggy development program for bases in the Indian Ocean and should increase its forces east of Suez. ”
If this, despite the shepherd tones of the UN, the UK and US policy towards the Arab countries, does not bode well for peaceful development in the Middle East. What does the Norwegian government think about these perspectives? Or may it not want to comment?
The road to peace in the Middle East
Shortly before the crisis in the Middle East erupted, Jean-Paul Sartre made a trip to the area, including collecting material for a special issue of "Les Temps Modernes" about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Shortly afterwards he gave an interview with the Czech magazine "Literarny Moviny", which we here excerpt.
However, we note that Sartre, along with 40 French intellectuals, has signed a manifesto which states that the recognition of Israel's sovereignty and the country's free access to international waters is a necessary condition for peace.
- They say your purpose for the trip was to provide information to the European left. Do you think that the leftist forces, and especially the socialist countries, can help the parties to come to a peace agreement?
- It is my opinion that there is such a possibility, and it is a fact that they will mediate at the moment it really becomes necessary. It is quite clear that the leftist forces must form an opinion on the problem and clarify their contacts to both warring parties.
- In your opinion, what is central to the Israeli-Arab conflict?
- Since 1948, not a single Arab country has recognized the existence of the Israeli state. From an Israeli point of view, the recognition of Israel is a basic condition for negotiations. The Arabs, in turn, demand that Arab refugees from Israel be able to return. The opinion of the Israelis on this is very much divided. It goes without saying that for the Arabs it is a fundamental condition for negotiations.
- Have they met people in Israel who are willing to accept the conditions of the Arabs?
- Yes, with a small reservation one can say that within the Israeli left there are people who are willing to recognize the right of refugees to return. Of course, this applies to the Israeli communists, but also within the left-wing Socialist Mapam, there are people who think it is necessary to negotiate the refugee problem and find a solution to it. Of course, realizing this comes with some practical difficulties. One must, for example. first remove some danger, start negotiations etc, but there are practical problems. If Israel wants to recognize the right of refugees to return, the country's position in the Middle East would change significantly.
- And have you found among the Arabs an understanding of Israel's demand for recognition of Israel's sovereignty?
- That is how you cannot ask the question. In the Arab countries and the United Arab Republic there are many different elements, the socialist system is only at its beginning, and so far there is no organized left. People I have met have said that if there was an organized Israeli left that recognizes the refugees' right to return, it would facilitate their work.
- Are they thinking of recognition of Israel?
- Not exactly. There are people who believe that a peaceful solution can be reached if there is a strong left in Israel willing to recognize the right of refugees to return.
It is a very widespread notion that Israel is closely linked to imperialist politics, and that there is therefore no real Israeli left?
- This view can be debated, but it has unfortunately been proven by the three-sided aggression against Egypt in 1956. Every time you talk to Egyptians they remind one of what happened in 1956. Therefore, I believe that the Israeli left should take the first step for to show that, despite this negative tradition, there is a real left that will lead class politics.
"I do not think that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be resolved from above. It should be resolved by themselves, by the people who live in the conflict themselves. One cannot rely on Soviet-American agreements, only on Arab-Israeli agreements. ” ? Jean-Paul Sartre
- What impression did you get from the Israeli left?
- I think the European left should support it. To prevent it from attending international conferences is simply to make the way to a solution even more difficult. The Israeli left is not strong. Therefore, we must support it so that it can more easily express new thoughts on the questions that interest us now.
- They are very concerned about the Vietnam War. Just before the Russell Tribunal session, you spent a whole month studying the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do you think these two problems are similar?
- I don't think so. In Vietnam, it is a national liberation struggle against imperialism. The situation in the Middle East is more complicated. Of course, the capitalist West exerts a great influence on Israel, and the leftist forces are therefore even more suspicious of Israel. Of course, this applies first and foremost to the Arab left. But this conflict is not about a people's struggle against imperialism. If the Israeli left shows that it is not only fighting class struggle, but is also fighting for the Arab refugees' right to return, for peace with Egypt, and for Israel to join the Afro-Asian countries, it will of course strengthen Egypt's confidence to Israel.
They have visited the relocation camps in the Gaza area. Do they think the Israelis are aware of the situation the refugees are in?
- The refugees live in very poor, yes, directly awful conditions. I know that in Israel there is a very widespread belief that it is the Arabs' fault. I mean that is completely wrong. It is said that the Arab countries intentionally allow the refugees to live under these terrible conditions in order to present them for propaganda purposes for foreigners. I do not know all Arab countries, but I know Egypt. I know that this country is trying hard to industrialize and socialize the country, and that there is no way to absorb 300 refugees from the Gaza area when the country's own annual population increase is on
750 000.
- They have also met representatives of the Arab minority in Israel. Is there any possibility that this group could form a bridge between the parties so that through them they could reach understanding and peace?
- Some Arabs have stated to me that such a bridge could be conceived under certain conditions. These conditions are quite simple: the minority must have the same civil rights as the Israelis. They all have political rights, but that doesn't mean much since they only make up a minority of 300 against a majority of
2. They do not have full financial rights. It has various causes, partly the traditional structure of the Arab family and the Arab village community, partly the historical factors that originated in the war in 000, and partly the activity of certain Jewish groups. For the Arabs to see the benefits in Israel, it is imperative that they be recognized as fully equal citizens with all rights.
Finally, I would say that the development of the Arabs and Israelis depends on the development of the left parties. The stronger the left sides on both sides, the better opportunities there will be to reach a solution. So far, there is the impression that the right-wing forces on both sides, without knowing it, are working together to prevent an agreement between the two parties' left-wing forces. However, the left-hand forces on both sides can only strengthen the device using the left-hand forces on the other side. That is why I believe that it is in the task of the European left to show even more confidence in the left of both parties to increase their weight and strength. That, in my opinion, is the only option. I do not think that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be resolved from above. It should be resolved by themselves, by the people who live in the conflict themselves. One cannot rely on Soviet-American agreements, only on Arab-Israeli agreements. We must not discriminate leftist forces on either side, but have confidence in both.
The column is edited by Line Fausko, line@nytid.no
