Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From Labor Action, Vol. 13 No. 50, 12 December 1949, p. 2.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
The Palestinian question, which has scarcely left the news columns since the end of the war, is now once again before the UN in the discussions on the fate of Jerusalem.
The original partition resolution on November 29, 1947, provided that Jerusalem was to be a separate unit governed directly by the UN. Since then it has been occupied and divided by the two main powers of the area, Israel and Jordan. It is quite obvious to all concerned that neither of these two states will give up the city. To Israel it means giving up one4enth of its population. To Jordan’s Abdullah it means giving up his only success and his greatest prestige point as ruler of the “Holy City.”
Nor would such a move be correct from the standpoint of the right of self-determination of peoples. The Jews and Arabs of Jerusalem want to, and have a right to be free of ALL foreign control and to rule themselves in their own states.
The stage for the current session was set by a proposal of the UN Conciliation Commission (U.S., Turkey and France) which proposed an internationalized, demilitarized Jerusalem, with a limited autonomy for the Jeyvish and Arab sectors. Under . pressure, the Conciliation Committee modified its proposal and allowed the FORMAL sovereignty of the Jewish and Arab states and the participation of the inhabitants as citizens in their respective states, yet retained real power in the international foreign body.
This ambiguous and unrealistic plan was endorsed by the U.S., Britain and France with amendments to make it more “practical.” The representatives of Israel and Jordan denounced it as allowing for too much “international” interference. On the other hand, the Vatican, the Arab rivals of Abdullah and the Stalinist bloc considered that it did not go far enough along the road of internationalization and proposed that the original “dictum” of the partition resolution be applied. This proposition, in the form of an Australian resolution and Russian amendments, has been carried in the UN subcommittee by a small majority.
Since the UN assembly requires a two-thirds vote, it seems unlikely that either proposal will be accepted.
There are two possible lines of action for the UN. One is postponing decision. The other is taking shape in the form of a compromise solution by Sweden that will have the support of the U.S. and England. This will permit Israel and Jordan to retain their control under UN supervision and will contain a clause (which will amount to a pious wish) to consider the question of the internationalization of Jerusalem at a future date.
Since the UN has usually followed the policy of legalizing the existing conditions (partition was passed only after the UN’s hand was forced by British withdrawal and a de-facto state-within-a-state set up by the Jews), the net effect of any resolution passed by the UN will at most be along the lines of the Swedish resolution.
Israel at present is proposing that New Jerusalem be given to Israel and that UN rule be limited to the Old City or tp the holy places. Since neither the Old City nor any of the so-called “shrines” are in Israeli-controlled territory, the Israeli government is magnanimously giving away its neighbor’s rights. Abdullah, on the other hand, is forced to reject all international rule since his portion of Jerusalem is composed primarily of the holy places.
The never-ending rumors of peace negotiations between Israel and Jordan are now reaching a crescendo. The theory is that the only way Jordan and Israel can remain in full control of their respective sectors of Jerusalem is by presenting the world with a peace treaty and by each legally recognizing the other’s rights. There can be no doubt that such a position is logical and desirable. Not only will it solve the problem of Jerusalem but it will be the beginning of a series of peace treaties with other Arab states.
Unfortunately, while it is a possibility, a quick peace between Israel and Jordan is unlikely. Israel both wants to come to terms, with Abdullah as the most moderate – at present – of all the Arab states and at the same time fears Abdullah’s ambition of a greater Syria (backed by Britain) as a long-term threat in the Near East. Then, too, Abdullah cannot sign a peace treaty with Israel that does not contain some territorial gains. Otherwise he would be discredited not only among the people, but more particularly among the Arab nationalists. These concessions will not be obtained from Israel.
The position of Stalinist Russia as the only great power in favor of complete internationalization and as the leader of a strange group of bedfellows – the Catholic bloc (Vatican and Greek Orthodox), the Stalinist bloc, plus the Arab states – has aroused the greatest amount of discussion. This current position of Russia is in sharp contrast with its position of two years ago, when the Stalinists tried to prove that they were the only true friends of Israel.
The change of attitude of Russia and her satellites did not come suddenly. Labor Action was the first to predict a reversal of Russian policy toward Israel as early as October 1948, over one year ago. During the past year, Labor Action has reported the continued development of anti-Zionist statements and actions in Russia and the Russian puppet states. Zionism and especially left-socialist Zionism, is currently being denounced as “Trotskyism.” A few months back, Labor Action foreshadowed Russia’s present anti-Israel position on Jerusalem.
Among the reasons usually given for Stalin’s attitude on Jerusalem are: Russia wants a say in the Near East through the Trusteeship Council; Stalin wants to assume the mantle of protector of the “orthodox” interests in the Holy Land, etc. These factors play a role, but are secondary to Russia’s main motives. These motives are more DIRECTLY connected with oil and power politics.
The ONLY reason Russia supported Israel was to get Britain out of Palestine. Stalin momentarily revised his pro-Mufti position to accomplish this end. He never completely severed connections with the Arab rulers. While most arms were sold to Israel, a sizable quantity was sold to Syria and provisions were supplied to the Egyptian army. Having accomplished the aim of ousting the British, the Stalinists are once again turning to the Arabs, whom they consider the decisive element in the Near East. Their appeal is not, primarily to the people, but to seetions of the ruling class. This is in line with their theory and practice of “national” revolt in the .Near East, and with their new consideration: they hope to bring sections of the rulers close enough to them so that they can get oil quickly.
Thus they renew their flirtations with the Mufti and others. In addition, internationalization, in taking Jerusalem away from the Jews, also takes it away from Abdullah, Britain’s most reliable Arab ally.
Wide publication was given to a Tass News Agency release of an article in Pravda which said that Israel was a tool of U.S. imperialism, that Israel did not win the war in Palestine but achieved victory through international politics. This last statement is a complete reversal of the previous position.
[Some text missing] the truce and the cease-fire were a maneuver to save the Arabs.
The Stalinist “World League for Truth” has been distributing – amid much similar propaganda – handbills showing the U.S. and Britain standing guard over Arabs, while figures representing Israelis plunder their homes.
The complete cynicism of the Stalinists is seen by the fact that while on the one hand they are concentrating a great deal on the Arab refugees (N.Y. Times, Nov. 25), on the other hand Poland has declared in the UN that Arab refugees cannot expect to be returned in large numbers to Israel.
Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 11 December 2022