EXPLOSIVE MIDDLE EAST SITUATION

"Israeli's air attacks on what are said to be the headquarters of guerrilla forces in Syria are not likely to deter the Arab fanatics who have been raiding along the Israel border. The dangerous dilemma is that neither restraint nor retaliation shows any sign of leading to peace. Much of the trouble stems from the failure of all concerned to solve the problem of the Palestinian Arab refugees. From the camps of misery in which scores of thousands of these displaced people have existed for more than 20 years a succession of what might be called hereditary terrorists can be recruited into the Arab movement for liberating Palestine." - From Melbourne Herald editorial February 25.

From time to time readers write questioning, or criticising, our comments on the Middle East crisis. The distinguished American Jew, Moshe Menuhin, father of the famous violinist Yehudi Menuhin, has observed in his book, The Decadence of Judaism, that discussion on the Arab-Israeli is impossible with those who refuse to go back to the start of the story. Like many other Jews, Moshe Menuhin is strongly critical of the International Political Zionist Movement, the terrorist methods by which the State of Israel was established, the subsequent failure of the Israelis to accept the boundaries located to them by the UN and to even make a start towards implementing a policy of justice towards the million natives of Palestine who were uprooted from their homes in 1948.

Because the basic facts of the Middle East crisis receive comparatively little publicity, Political Zionist propaganda being much more effective than anything the Arab nations can present, does not alter the reality of the facts. Our duty is to present truth even though many well-meaning people find it unpalatable. It is something that one Australian daily paper, The Herald (Melbourne) does draw attention to one of the running sores of the Middle East situation, the dreadful refugee problem, which has been a source of tremendous profit to the Soviet strategists.

No realistic discussion is possible on the Middle East crisis without a consideration of the following background:
During the First World War the British and French made firm promises to Arab leaders that they would enjoy freedom and independence after the war if they rose up against their Turkish overlords and joined with the British forces. Arab leaders accepted British promises and Arab forces played a major role in the defeat of the Turks. Specifically listed for independence was Palestine where Arabs had lived for over a thousand years. This was their native land. But the Western Allies were being hard pushed by the Germans.

The great German-Jewish international financial groups, including men like Jacob Schiff and the Warburgs, were pro-German and strongly opposed to America entering the conflict on the side of the British and French Political Zionists, with Dr. Chaim Weizmann as their spokesman, applied increasing pressure the British Government to agree that their plans for Palestine should be accepted. This led to the infamous Balfour Agreement, under which the British Government led by Mr. Lloyd George not only broke the British promise to the Arabs, but promised to hand over another peoples country to another group of people. It was only after the British had capitulated on this question that America entered the war and the German-Jewish international financial groups changed their attitude towards the Western allies.

Not generally known is that most British Jewish leaders opposed the Zionists' proposals. The Palestinians were outraged when they discovered that they had been betrayed. They attempted to resist as the British, who took over Palestine as a Mandate, permitted a massive Zionist influx into Palestine to take place.

The British were forced in 1939 to adopt once more a more sympathetic policy towards the Arabs, as stability in the Middle East was essential for defeat against Hitler's Germany. Hitler attempted to exploit the Arabs. Under cover of the Second World War the Political Zionists intensified their campaign to dominate Palestine, making increasing use of terrorist tactics. Endeavouring to maintain control, the British were faced with a campaign of worldwide vilification, organised by the Political Zionists, and a flood of illegal Jewish refugees ruthlessly used by the Zionist leaders to achieve their objectives. Zionist terrorist methods after the war resulted in such terrible events as the bombing of the King-David Hotel, when large numbers of woman and children died.

Eventually the British decided they could take no more of Zionist terrorism. And they were under heavy pressure from the Truman Administration in Washington. They relinquished the Palestine Mandate. With the firm backing of the Soviet under Stalin, and of Washington, the Zionist declared the new State of Israel immediately the British left. But in spite of the Zionist campaign, the Jews were only a small minority of the total population, and owned only a small part of the country. The UN had decided that Palestine be partitioned.

Fighting broke out when the British left and the Israelis, supported by the Soviet with military equipment essential for success, scored a major victory and seized even more territory than that allocated by the UN. This was the period of mass exodus by the Palestinians, leaving behind their homes and properties to the Zionist invaders. They were forced out by dreadful terrorist activities by the Zionists.

The UN has not even attempted to enforce its own decisions concerning Palestine and the mass refugee problem, further increased by the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict when Israel took the whole of the West bank of the Jordan. Not surprisingly, those forced out of their homeland by the Zionist invaders are prepared to listen to anyone, even the Communists, who will promise them the justice, which no civilised person can deny they should get.

If the West really desires to save the Middle East, it has got to insist that Israel accepts at the very minimum the borders laid down by the UN, and to make some contribution towards solving the refugee problem created by Israel. It will have to be made clear to the Arabs that they must accept Israel as a small State in the Middle East. This means that Israel must cease to be merely an instrument of International Political Zionism, helping to remove Arab fears, justified to some extent by events to date, that Israel is but a manifestation of Western "imperialism."
This type of approach would have the strong support of moderate Arab leaders like King Hussein. And it would strike a major blow at the very roots of Soviet strategy in the Middle East.

Many of the Arabs are strongly suspicious of the Soviet, as well they might be as they note that Israel's Chief Rabbi has been invited to Moscow, and has accepted the invitation. It is also reported that the Soviet is cutting down on deliveries of spare parts of Egypt's Soviet military equipment. The Middle East situation is now so serious that it is essential that every effort be made to ensure that as many people as possible have an understanding of the background of developments. Mr. Eric Butler has contributed a special article on the subject for the March issue of Intelligence Survey. It is recommended for the close study of all On Target readers.

RUSSIANS IN INDIAN OCEAN TO STAY

"The Russians now have a permanent naval squadron in the Indian Ocean in addition to that in the Mediterranean. The Sunday Telegraph reported that it had been confirmed in Whitehall that there are now about 12 to 14 Soviet naval vessels, including missile ships and submarines, in the area. Two Soviet ships, a guided missile destroyer and a supply ship, are on their way to reinforce the Indian Ocean from the Mediterranean." The Australian February 24.

The evidence continues to show that having seized the initiative in filling the vacuum created by the British withdrawal from East of Suez, the Soviet is vigorously expanding and consolidating its naval strength and political influence in countries bordering the Indian Ocean. A little publicised aspect of long-term Soviet planning for the Indian Ocean is the quiet Soviet build up at the Somali port of Berbera, directly south of Aden. This is beyond doubt part of the Soviet plan to control entrance to the Red Sea. The Soviet have made a major effort to develop at Berbera a port to provide themselves with a base for their growing Indian Ocean Fleet. Berbera will supplement the existing main harbour at the capital, Mogadishu. There was a ceremonial opening of the new port in January, with Soviet representatives present. Subsequently an announcement from Moscow said that because of the "exceptional importance" of Berbera Soviet "experts" will be taking charge of the port's operation for the next few years. Further deepening of the harbour is being undertaken, and a modern radio station will be under Soviet control.
The West now has no naval base facilities on the Eastern Coast of Africa north of the Portuguese port of Beira in Mozambique. Mr. Harold Wilson is still blockading this against that "threat to world peace", Rhodesia!
Mr. Wilson has denied the South Africans the essential equipment necessary for the development of Durban as a base for Western warships.

The Soviet strategists should be pleased with their progress in the Indian Ocean.
Soviet Indian Ocean developments must concern thinking Australians about their future. They underline the vital importance of the League of Rights' special brochure, "Australia's Front Line In Southern Africa", being distributed as widely as is quickly possible. (Order from Box 1052J. G. P. 0., Melbourne 300l. Prices: 10 c per single. copy; $1. per dozen; $3. per 50.)

DEFICIENCY FUND ADVANCES

COMMUNISTS TRUE TO FORM ON VIETNAM

"The state Department has started an urgent review to see if the Communists have broken the 'understanding' by which the U.S. stopped bombing North Vietnam last October. The Communists could have violated the informal agreement with the series of attacks they launched on South Vietnamese towns since the week end."- The Herald (Melbourne) February 25.

There is nothing surprising about the latest Communist military offensive in Vietnam. The main objective is political, nor military. The Communists are running true to form … they know that in spite of the military mauling they have received in the Vietnam War; they have made tremendous political and psychological gains. Documents recently captured in Vietnam reveal that the Communist high command has told Communist troops how they are confident of a great political victory. One document reads, "We can have moderate victory any time we want, but we must preserve our standpoint and force a U.S. withdrawal."
Further military pressure by the Communists will be exerted when felt necessary to assist them at the Paris "peace" talks.

If South-East Asia is to be saved from the Communist thrust, the non-Communists have got to demonstrate, much more will than they have. Australia could give a valuable lead by strongly supporting the much more realistic viewpoint of the South Vietnamese leaders like Vice-President Ky.

THE WEEK IN BRIEF

ON TARGET BULLETIN

SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Constitutional Monarchy

Australia is formally a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Democracy. The Democratic process is part of the constitutional structure. America is not a Democracy, but a Republic. The American Founding Fathers realised that the British had turned their backs, temporarily, on their own constitutional heritage, and were determined that their written Constitution would be a repository of the permanent values upon which their nation would be built. The American Constitution is in one respect the equivalent of the British Crown. It was made as difficult as possible to change. The Crown itself is an institution, which cannot be changed. But as pointed out in the extract from Eugene H. Forsey in Thought for the Week in the last issue of On Target, the Crown can in a crisis ensure that no major constitutional changes take place without the people being consulted.
The reserve powers of the Crown have been referred to by Professor Harold Laski and other Marxists who have observed that it could act as a major barrier to a Marxist revolution.

The person representing the institution of the Crown is not only the Head of State, the focal point of the Nation. C.H. Douglas wrote as follows in Realistic Constitutionalism (1947): "The essential soul of a nation is in its character, its culture and tradition. The King (Queen) is the natural embodiment of Honours and Sanctions of Culture and Tradition and, as such, is naturally the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces."

At a time when tradition is under heavy attack by the forces of revolution, it is important to stress that tradition is the accumulated experience of the past. A people cut off from their past have lost their bearings and do not know where they are going. The process of voting is, of course, important in a free society. But in order to avert tyranny under the guise of "the majority will" it must be related to a constitutional idea, or ideal, in which is enshrined values rooted in reality. The primary ideal of the British constitutional system, which is part of the Australian heritage, is a Christian Monarchical order based upon the sanctity of each individual and in the personal ideal of freedom.

The Crown is based upon the Christian concept of ultimate authority. In the Queen's Coronation Service she was asked: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?" The Coronation Service reflects the Christian concept of Monarchy, with the Queen (or King) pledging to act in accordance with God's laws, which cannot, of course, be changed by "the majority vote", however big it may be through propaganda and manipulation.

The nature of man in society, which is a complex form of association, is such that the effective division of political power is essential to prevent the development of tyranny. The Crown is essential as one of the divisions of power. Because the institution is not functioning as it should, is not an excuse to abolish it, but provides the necessity for reforming it.
The Queen is the Queen of Australia. Her personal representatives are the State Governors and the Governor-General. It is essential that such representatives be above party politics. If the Queen's representatives are going to be elected on the basis of their loyalty to the party in power, then the status of the Crown is downgraded.

Can a Governor-General appointed by his party colleagues be expected to take an impartial stand against political excesses? What if Australia turned to the system of the President being elected by the ruling party? Could a President be expected to act impartially and to check abuses of power by those who appointed him? Is the American Presidential system, with the President elected in a national circus every four years, preferable to the Australian system where the person to act as King or Queen is automatically selected through the hereditary principle and is trained specially for the task?