[Subscribe today to Socialist Action! 18 SOCIALIST ACTION…]

Scan page 18

Subscribe today to Socialist Action! 18 SOCIALIST ACTION JANUARY 1989 (continued from page I)

day one. The leadership of the Palestinian movement had given up the fight to unite Palestinians and Jews for the liberation of all of Palestine. They had accepted the right of the apartheid Israeli state to exist on Palestinian land and were ready to accept a "mini-state" in the West Bank and Gaza.

The stalling on the part of the State Department could only be for the purpose of pushing the P.L.O. as far as it would go. The warm reception to Arafat's concessions on the part of the European capitalist countries probably had an effect on the U.S. government's decision to act when it did. .

Israeli reaction

The Israeli government reacted with predictable dismay to Shultz's announcement of talks with the P.L.O. An official statement from Israel said, "We do not consider that this step will advance the peace process in the Middle East."

On Dec. 22, a new coalition government took power in Israel after more than 50 days of bickering between the Labor and Likud parties. Yitzhak Shamir and his rightist Likud party will carry the majority in the coalition.

The new government is based on common opposition to the P.L.O. and to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Shimon Peres of the Labor Party affirmed that "there will be no negotiations with the P.L.O." (New York Times, Dec. 21, 1988)

The coalition government also plans to increase Zionist colonization of the West Bank and Gaza. Eight new settlements are planned for the next year.

The Israeli goverment depends on U.S. financial and military support for its very survival. If the United States were to decide to Il one year for $8.

6 months for $4.

Enclosed is a contributior I] Send me more information about Socialist Action.

me Addr YA JAEMURI move ahead in convening a peace conference, the Zionist state wouldn't have much say in the matter.

Nevertheless, it's very helpful for U.S. policymakers to have Israel take such an adamant position against negotiations with the Palestinians. Israel can play the hard cop, and the United States can justify asking for more concessions because of Israel's "stubbornness." "Quelling the violence"

One of the main goals of the U.S. government is to bring to a quick end the Stat Tel. 990 NOTE FROM GEORGE SORRY. other activities.

HAVE YOU RENOUNCED

_YES...

DO YOU RECOGNIZE

ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST? -YES..

DO YOU HAVE A -WELL,N . uprising-the Intifada-that has shaken Palestine for over a year. Aware that Israeli military measures against the Intifada have proven ineffective, U.S. officials are pursuing other means to this end.

Undersecretary of State Michael Armacost made this clear in a report given after the negotiations opened with the P.L.O. Pointing out what the P.L.O. must do to continue a dialogue with the United States, Armacost said: "I think it would be very helpful if there is a subsiding of violence in the territories."

According to The Washington Post, Armacost "called upon the P.L.O. to demonstrate by 'deeds' that it has truly renounced terrorism and to use its influence to quell the violence in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip."

Evidently the State Department considers children throwing stones at armed soldiers to be "terrorists."

Heading into a trap In his Dec. 14 press conference, Arafat made an important statement. He said, "Let it be absolutely clear that neither Arafat, nor anyone for that matter, can stop the Intifada, the uprising." This is true. But though he may not be able to stop the uprising, Arafat and the entire P.L.O. leadership have adopted a course that can greatly disorient the Palestinian masses and take them into a trap.

The United States is willing to allow the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian Bantustan in confederation with Jordan if all other options fail. It is aware that such a course would sidetrack-and ultimately derail-the Palestinian resistance movement. Arafat has stated that he is open to this "confederal" solution.

The P.L.O., of course, has every right to pursue the historic goals of the Palestinian people through diplomatic means. But diplomacy must always be subordinate to the overall goal of national self-determination. Recognition of the Israeli state in exchange for a Palestinian mini-state is tantamount to the rejection of self-determination for Palestine.

The national demands of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories and inside the "Green Line" (that is, the territories occupied prior to 1967) can only be met by the liberation of all of Palestine. That would mean the dismantling of the Zionist state and its replacement with a democratic and secular Palestine with equal rights for Jews and Arabs.

subscriptions and in $4 while or the classes, forums, and

----- pull-quotes -----

City Zip

SHULTZ SAYING ITS O.K. TO LET YOU IN?