Inside Israel's peace bloc
* India/Israel
Proof, if anyone needed any, of the US attitude to non-proliferation, and the degree of safety involved in US custody of nuclear weapons.
The clearest instance of US policy and the nuclear threat was the so-called Cuban Interview with Adam Keller of the Gush Shalom peace movement missile crisis. In 1959-62, there was a revolution against the oppressive US-backed dictator Batista. The initial measures to control capitalist property culminated in a telescoping of nationaldemocratic and socialist stages of the revolution. This deepening of the revolution deepened US hostility as well.
Imperialism failed at traditional forms of intervention. There were no significant local forces to act as imperialist stooges. The 1961 invasion by a US organised military force was resoundingly beaten back. Cuba's revolutionary regime had an obvious appeal across Latin America. Getting rid of it was deemed essential. The placing of Soviet missiles in Cuba was a misplaced action, taken moreover without the full awareness of the Cubans. But US reaction showed its willingness to grasp any straw to mount an all out attack. On October 16, 1962, at the meeting of the executive committee of the National Security Council, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Robert McNamarra, and others were prepared to go in for a general attack. Nuclear war did not break out, because Moscow was willing to trade its Cuban base against closure of US missile bases in Turkey, and because of the Cuban leadership's flexible response to the crisis.
The nuclear option was again considered by US leaders when American troops found themselves loosing ground in Vietnam, despite a massive deployment of forces. In 1969 alone, the US had dropped 75,000 tons of non-nuclear bombs in Vietnam. When this was found to be useless as far as US strategic objectives were concerned, Kissinger and Nixon opened discussions on the nuclear option. At least once, between late 1970,and early 1971, a stand-down order was issued, indicating preparations for a nuclear attack
This history must be borne in mind by those in India or Pakistan who advocate the retention of nuclear weapons, or of the option to weaponise, in the name of national security.
Vietnam and North Korea beat back the USA without nuclear weapons. Cuba has withstood the US for 35 years since the nuclear missiles crisis, and without a nuclear umbrella. The option to weaponise is not a deterrence option, but an option to bring wars nearer. References:
1. Frank Barnaby and Geoffrey Thomas eds. The Nuclear
Arms Race —Control or Catastrophe? London, 1982.
2. Bruce Cummings, The Origins of the Korean War: Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes
1945-1947, Princeton, 1981.
3. Rosemary Foot, The Wrong War: American Policy and the Dimensions of the Korean Conflict, 1950-1953,
Ithaca and London, 1985.
4. Gabriel Kolko, Anatomy of a War, New York, 1985.
5. A. R. Isaacs, Without Honour: Defeat in Vietnam and
Cambodia, Baltimore and London, 1983.
6. Marc Trachtenberg, *The Influence of Nuclear
Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis', International
Security, vol. 10, no. 1, Summer 1984. US Imperialism,
Revolutions and the Nuclear Threat
22 International Viewpoint #303
International Viewpoint: When was Gush Shalom (the Peace Block) formed and what organisations does it regroup? Adam Keller: It was founded in December 1992, after the deportation of 450 Palestinian Islamic activists to Lebanon. A few months later, the Rabin Labour government took power. At the time, it was a big disappointment. For the first six months of his term in office, Rabin did very little to advance the peace process, but instead was quite aggressive...
We felt that many of the peace movements in Israel - especially Peace Now -were too closely tied to the Labour Party. They were too inhibited about contronting the Labour Party... We felt the need for a group which would be independent from political parties, and which would be willing to support or oppose the government on the merits of what it was actually
Gush Shalom was originally called the Jewish-Arab Committee Against Deportations. It was quite a broad coalition which included some elements which did not
In the beginning we had the active participation of the Islamic movement [among Israel's Arab citizens]. We did not always agree with them, but at least we worked out a kind of modus vivendi which helped us to understand better those who are sometimes called Muslim fundamentalists. In fact, we became very doubtful about using the term "fundamentalists" which is now used as a catch-all term, as was the word "Communist" during the • Did you discuss with them the question of terrorism, of armed actions aimed against civilian targets?
Yes, of course. Firstly, we have to remember that this is the Islamic movement in Israel, whose members are Israeli citizens. On the one hand they certainly have officially declared fraternal relations with the Hamas, Hezbollah and the other Islamic movements in the Arab world. On the other hand, particularly through municipalities where they have been elected to power, they have an official working relationship with the Israeli
When the question comes up, they always say that they are against killing civilians, but that they have the right to take up arms when Islamic people are oppressed. When you talk to them about
Hamas or the Algerian Islamic movement for example, they say that they do not agree with what those groups ar doing, but that they understand that they have been pushed into this situation by circumstances, occupation, oppression, etc... • But aside from the fact that they try to resist the oppression to which they are victims as Palestinians, aren't they reactionary, right-wing, obscurantist, religious?
I don't think that is the case for all of them. When discussing the situation of women, for instance, we discovered that there were a wide range of opinions among them. It seems that Islamic law concerning the status of the women in society is subject to quite a lot of
Actually, we found a lot of similarities between our discussions with them and with Jewish rabbis (priests). Moslem and Jewish Israelis both have a general assumption of a religious, God-given right to the land. But in both cases, the question arises of how far this God-given right should be pursued, and whether other circumstances, especially the sanctity of human life, could be an overriding factor against certain kinds of behaviour...
In any case, this initial stage was basically Gush Shalom's pre-historic period. during our anti-deportation work... As more general issues were raised, we started to work mainly with other forces, although we still find a basis for working with Muslim activists on specific issues from time to time. • What about the other components which make up Gush Shalom?
Gush Shalom was initially conceived as a coalition of groups. There were a few small groups which merged with one another, losing their initial identity, and there were others which ended up leaving. In the beginning, the Communist Party, Haddash, was quite deeply involved, but that did not last very long
From the middle of 1997, Gush Shalom was not really a coalition of forces, but rather a distinct group as such. We promote the two-state solution as the political scenario that could resolve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. • You said that Gush Shalom is willing to support or oppose Israeli governments on the merits on what they actually do. Have you yet had the occasion to support an Israeli government?
Yes. In August 1993, we demonstrated in front of the Labour Party Headquarters when Rabin was attending a party meeting. We called upon him to talk with
the PLO, and we unveiled a large painting of Rabin shaking hands with Arafat. It was a very short-term prophecy, as less than two weeks later, Rabin put into practise exactly what we asked him to do in this demonstration.
For the first months following the signing of the Oslo Accords we supported the Rabin government. But we were among the first to start criticising it, at the end of 1993 and beging of 1994
The first thing was Rabin's refusal to release political prisoners. That was his government's first big mistake in a series which led to his assassination.
If he would have released nearly all of the prisoners (except for a few hard-core convicted terrorists), it would have had an enormous impact on Palestinian society. The right wing would have made an outcry, but which would not have been a major obstacle. But he hesitated on this releasing a few hundred prisoners in gradual stages... Of course, the right wing protested using demagogy, saying that murderers were being released, although most liberated prisoners were not
That was the beginning. We started to criticise Rabin at that time.
He went far too slowly. He never respected any of the timetables specified in the Oslo Accords. And so he let the opponents of peace apply their own agenda. First came the Baruch Goldstein massacre in Hebron. Then Hamas perpetrated its suicide bombings. The right wing then got more power, by asking the general Israeli public "how is it that we signed a peace agreement and now more Israelis are getting killed than before?" • What was Gush Shalom's reply to that preoccupation?
We urged Rabin to move ahead, to go forward. We criticised him for not adhering to his own timetable. We told him that with this policy, he was undermining his own agreement and strengthening his opponents. We became more and more critical of him at the end of 1994 and at the beginning of 1995...
Towards the middle of 1995 the peace process started to gain momentum again. More mainstream groups like Peace Now also started to be more vocal.
Israel then evacuated the six big Palestinian cities as foreseen by the Oslo Accords. We then went through another stage of supporting the Rabin government. And then, of course, he was assassinated. • Do you actually mean supporting Rabin's government or supporting a specific measure which that government undertook?
Don't forget that we are an extra-parliamentary movement so we don't have to deal with the question of giving parliamentary support. But the Rabin government basically wasted a whole year. It then started to go ahead with the Palesand IMF. Despite this, the ruling classes and economic pacts like the WTO [World Trade Organisation]. In the past 50 years, these pacts have become a danger to the political and economic independence of the region. The local market is controlled by the international monopolies because government has increased its defence ment has declared a state of emergency and taken back any civil rights the
There are more economic measures the governments will take to increase the burden on the masses, including cuts in the Left Alliance, which includes the Labour of these pacts. Party of Pakistan, the Pakistan Socialist Party, the Pakistan Awami Jamhuri Party and the Communist Mazdoor Kisan Party. The safety of the more than 1.5 billion people in the subcontinent has been put in danger as a result of the mad race for nuclear weapons technology by the ruling classes of India and Pakistan.
In India, nuclear weapons are in the hands of the religious-fascist fanatics of
Instead of fighting these institutions, our rulers are promoting atomic fanaticism and indirectly promoting the influence of imperialist forces. They are promoting national chauvinism to prolong their rule and increase exploitation of the masses.
The Pakistani rulers' justification for the nuclear weapon explosions is the farcical excuse of defence of the country. They should know that the Soviet Union could not maintain itself despite all its weapons.
workers' wages. The Pakistan government has even cancelled the May national holiday.
• We condemn the atomic explosions by the rulers of Pakistan and India.
• We demand an immediate lifting of
• We demand that India and Pakistan accept the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. India and
Pakistan should sit at the negotiating table to sort out a solution to the the Bharatiya Janata Party, and in Paki- Only the people's economic and social stan they are controlled by a government under great pressure from religious fundamentalists.
Both governments will not spare any time in using these dangerous weapons if their rule, prestige and so-called "national and religious priorities" are in danger.
South Asia is in deep economic crisis stability can guarantee the defence of the country, not weapons.
The poor masses of both countries will be subject to increased hunger, unemployment, poverty and social degradation. In this region, over 78% live in poverty. As a result of this mad race for nuclear weapons, the people of both countries
Kashmir conflict.
• We demand a 50% cut in military
• We demand that India and Pakistan sign a treaty not to attack each other.
• We demand an end to atomic arms throughout the world.* Green Left Weekly (Sydney, Australia) #321 June 17 1998
----- pull-quotes on this page -----