How to Work for Peace and Come 0111 S111ili11g 211 HOW TO WORK FOR PEACE AND COME OUT SMILING: REMINISCENCES Norman Rothfield halom (peace) is one of the most precious aspirations of Jews, in common with other human beings. Yet the history of peoples is a history of wars, to gain Sterritory, power, wealth or national glory. I have devoted a good deal of my life opposing war, working for peace, but I am no pacifist. I recognise that at times people have been forced to defend themselves, their homes and their land. However, the claim of self defence is often spurious and deceptively used by aggressors. I was brought up in a school environment which defended and extolled almost every British war in history, while at evening classes I was taught that Jews also are special - they were God's chosen people. However, by the time I left university, I was ready to support my country or my people if the cause was just. But if I thought they were dangerously wrong I was prepared to react (with others) against them. I rejected the notion 'my country right or wrong.' That, I decided, was a slogan which glorified and justified war. And there was a great deal in British colonial history which, far from being glorious, was in my opinion brutal, racist and exploitative. Pseudo-patriotism enabled unscrupulous leaders to take their people into senseless wars. In Australia, a massive challenge was mounted against the Vietnam war. I was involved in the early days of protest when we were facing a determined govern­ ment, backed by a large majority of Australians inspired by 'patriotic' fervour. The going was not easy, but the final withdrawal of Australian forces and the virtual defeat of the United States and its policy of intervention was a vindication of the peace movement, worldwide. For my part, it provided satisfaction and compen­ sation for the gruelling and somewhat difficult period when we had to face the stigma of being unpatriotic, un-Australian, etc. This involved fighting on two fronts and provided a useful preparation for the difficult experience of campaigning for Israel, and for peace in the Middle East. 1967 was a year of traumatic experience - before the war, for Israelis, after the war for the whole Arab nation. Israel's pre-emptive strike which initiated the Six Day War was, in my view, on balance, justified. That war changed the face of Middle East politics and in many ways changed the character of Israeli society. It also intensified the discussion about Israel's place in the Middle East. I was travelling with my wife Evelyn in Europe when the war broke out and we anxiously followed the news wherever we were. Our Jewish friends in Australia helped to ensure Labor Party support for Israel which was in popular imagination still the David threatened by the Goliath of Arab oil and military power. But the Palestinians looked for allies from the peace activists who were demanding peace and justice in Vietnam. What about a little justice for us? said the Palestinians. Concepts changed. Terrorists became freedom fighters. Indeed, all over the world there were freedom fighters striking against colonial rule, or the remnants of it. In Australia Jewish students had severe problems at universities which were the centre of intense political activity. Jewish students played their part in the radical 212 How to Work for Peace and Come Out Smiling movement against the war in Vietnam. At May Day rallies they carried a banner proclaiming 'Palestine Yes, Israel Yes.' Palestinian and other Arab groups carried a banner saying 'Palestine Yes, Israel No.' I recall once passing by such a banner at a demonstration and the Palestinian group jeered at me, saying 'This is no place for Zionists.' The Six Day War, for a time, changed the role of the Israeli Peace Movement (with whom, incidentally, I had had a long association.) That movement had con­ sisted, in the main, of activists of left-wing parties. The most prominent of these was Mapam which, for many years, was part of the Labor-led government coalition. In 1993 'Peace Now' is widely known as the Israeli Peace Organisation, which emphasises the need to recognise Palestinian rights as well as Israeli security needs. Forty years ago the Israeli peace organisation had a much broader programme, a concern for world events. The 'Israeli Peace Committee' was affiliated to the World Peace Council and among its activities it collected signatures, calling on the world powers to outlaw nuclear warfare. The secretary, Jacob Maius, told me with pride that the Israeli 'Ban the Bomb' movement had collected the signatures of a higher proportion of Israeli citizens than any other Western country. I met some of the Israelis, including a cabinet minister, Mordecai Bentov, at an international peace gathering in 1952. I had the impression that they, unlike most delegates from Western countries, receive encouragement from their government in their activities. Israel needed friends from all quarters. Only a few years pre­ viously weapons from Communist Czechoslovakia sanctioned by the Soviet Union had been vital in the battle to create the State of Israel. In November 1952 the Russian press carried a message of congratulations for the National Day of the Soviet Union, received from Ben-Gurion, the prime minister of Israel. In the 1960s Israeli peace activists joined in the protest against the war in Vietnam and early in 1967 they had arranged to send a delegation to a conference on Viet­ nam to be held in Stockholm some time in July. By the time the conference was to be held, however, the Six Day War had broken out and had terminated. The inter­ national conference then, especially for the Israelis, acquired a new significance. And so it had for Evelyn and for me. We too had planned to attend the Stockholm conference. I was an accredited delegate from the Australian Peace Movement. As we anticipated, a special session of the conference was arranged to discuss the Middle East war. The Arab countries were well represented and it soon became clear, from the speeches and the general response from the audience, that the mood of the conference was to condemn Israel. Speakers denounced what they called 'Israel's blatant aggression' and demanded an unconditional return of the land captured in the June war as a prior condition for any negotiations or discussions. It seemed to Evelyn and to me that a delegate other than an Israeli should be the first to present an alternative view of the war, but none seemed to be forthcoming. There was simultaneous translation into three or four languages and, presumably for the benefit of translators, speakers were asked to present their written speech well in advance of being called to the podium. As a delegate endorsed by an Australian peace organisation, I won the right to speak and I handed up to the translator's office a copy of my speech which, sus­ picious of censorship, I had delayed as long as possible. After some preliminary references to the desirability of peace and negotiation, I gave an account of the military threat to which Israel had been subject including the closure of the Straits of Tiran and the threatening speeches from President Nasser and others: speeches calling for a holy war of liberation and made before Israel's pre-emptive strike. How to Work for Peace and Come Out Smiling 213 Some of the audience began to protest and the chairman, a Bulgarian, wanted to silence me on technical grounds. I told him that I was accustomed to stand up to heckling in Australia when I demanded peace in Vietnam. I did not expect, nor would I agree, to be silenced when I demanded peace and negotiations in a con­ ference supposedly devoted to peace. I finished my speech with little further interference. When finally the resolutions of the conference were drafted the res­ olution on the Middle East spoke in generalities and the Israeli delegates them­ selves were not dissatisfied. Before I left the conference I had long conversations with the Egyptian, Syrian and Israeli delegates. They agreed, if there was time, to hold a private meeting together. This was only one month after the war and the agreement was quite surprising. Unfortunately I had to leave Stockholm before it could be realised. Back in Australia an old colleague, Jack Rezak, of Hashomer Hatzair-Mapam, with whom I had a close relationship, organised a meeting for me to report on the Stockholm conference. Naturally people at the meeting were most interested in the aspect of the conference concerning Israel and the Middle East. And they were interested also in the effects this was having on those on the Left who had, in the past, been traditional supporters of Israel. Much of the left wing in Australia rejected the notion that Israel had fought a war which they could not avoid. The Arab world, including the Palestinians, was by no means united on how to deal with Israel, but the agenda was set by the extremists, the terrorists and their spec­ tacular acts, such as the seizing of hostages and the hijacking of planes. In Australia these extremists obtained a certain degree of support. Their argument was simple: to retrieve your homeland desperate acts are needed, and are justified. One result of the Stockholm conference was a liaison between the Israeli peace committee and CICD (Congress for International Cooperation and Disarmament), the peace body I had represented. Some correspondence resulted and when CICD heard the World Peace Council was planning a special meeting on the Middle East to be held in Cairo, CICD strongly protested, pointing out the absurdity of pro­ posing a meeting in a location where a significant party would be unable to attend.