Middle East propaganda war (1)
Arabs in despair
George Bilain kin
The opinions of contributors are not necessarily those of The Spectator. The article by Mr Bilainkin is published in line with our view that such a grievance against the treatment of the Arab and Palestinian case in the British press should be ventilated. In view, however, of his allegation that a biased picture is being presented as a result of Israeli 'pressure,' we think it proper to print also Mr Laffin's article concerning the present organisation of Arab-Palestinian propaganda, especially at a time when there is real fear of yet another Arab-Israeli war, and when the American Secretary of State, Dr Kissinger, while reported this week to be working closely with the Egyptian President, Mr Sadat, has also spelled out, in a press review, the circumstances in which the US would be prepared to consider the use of force over Middle East oil.
Arab diplomatists and their rulers are astonished, desperate and bewildered, at the inexplicable absence of news about the twenty key states in the modern world — the oil kingdoms, republics and sheikdoms that control oil sales — here, and throughout the West. They contrast the flow daily, hourly, of every little item issued for and by Israeli politicians and public relations agencies, on every outlet of the BBC, and, of course, the British press.
If Israeli or United States puff-merchants, working to a scientific schedule, decide the material available from the debate on Palestine at the United Nations, can be "muted" or watered down, they find Russian ships delivering thousands of tons of munitions in Syrian ports. The BBC carries out its task well — in solemn voices the first item is repeated, hourly. It may or may not be true. Mrs GoIda Meir and General Dayan taught us to have reservations about all the 'news' from Israeli sources, especially when it is 'splashed' by the obedient, sycophantic, press here. I cannot recall one occasion when the papers, or the BBC, have told the British public of the delivery of vast quantities of aircraft, tanks, nuclear weapons or modern missiles — from United States aircraft, or ships.Neither do I recall an instance of Arab denials or categorical statements being placed before the public here. In the French journals, often, I have read of the bombing with napalm of Syrian or Lebanese villages, by the Israelis, with details of the dead or casualties. If I mention the sordid massacre of Deir Yassin, most Britons repeat the name as if it were a product by Picasso. That alone is evidence of the lack of balance in presentation of harrowing news. A noted Arab envoy, complained, not bitterly but with old despair, "Even when we have urgent, vital news, as about the oil embargo decided at the producers' conference, we have to buy space, to tell Britain. And it costs up to £3,000 a page." Another Arab diplomatist, recipient of a high British decoration, was explicit: "London is under the severest pressure from the United States." That some of us understand too well. But, when we moved away from the side of Mr Julian Amery, the diplomatist whispered, "It is time Britain was told of the grim management, or manipulation here, of the news by pro-Zionist or pro-Jewish factions." A third Arab diplomatist said, blandly, "We note from the Jewish Chronicle that Mr Wilson's legal adviser, Lord Goodman, is to be the guest of honour at the Balfour dinner in Jerusalem; as he has long been head of the powerful Newspapers Publishers' Associa tion, London, and a director of Yorkshire TV, also of the Sunday Observer, our governments wonder if that is a model way to secure absolute balance in presenting the Arab and Israeli pictures. I leave the answer to you." He remarked that, recently, the painfully proZionist Radio 4 programme of the BBC called on the Israeli envoy in Washington to comment Dr F. A. Mann's book, The Legal Aspect of Money, referred to in G. M. Lewis's article last week is published by the Oxford University Press (not by Macmillan, as stated). on the speech by PLO leader, Mr Arafat — why, I was asked, did the BBC not invite a pro-Arab or Arab notable, to answer?
Arab notables are not all enthusiastic now about President Sadat's German-American kissing friend, and the exchanges of affection in public for TV. Said the most diligent Arab diplomatist in London, "None of your papers will reveal what we have known for years, to our sorrow. When Dr Kissinger reached the Middle East he spread the tale through the sycophantic army of journalists in his large' aircraft, that America would now offer nuclear know-how, and some reactors, to Egypt, and, also to Israel. This was late 1973. Naturally, the Israeli press soon carried out its orders, and protests flowed. Was America or Kissinger not dreadful to make this kind of offer to Egypt?
But, nearly every Arab leader has known, for six or seven years, of the truth. Kissinger lied in 1973." He recalled that America's disenchanted, or fuming, Chargé d'Affaires in Cairo, Mr David Nes, resigned in anger after twenty-six years in the service. Mr Nes shocked a few readers of the Times in 1971 with an indictment of Nixon, and his aides. This article was 'taken out' of the later editions. The headings read, "US assistance between 1948 and 1968 was equal to $14.00 for each Israeli." And, "America's very special Relationship with Israel."
Mr Nes revealed the control of the US military, of Congress, of newspapers, of Nixon and his staff — by Israelis, led by Moshe Dayan, the formidable defence minister and also keen collector of rare antiques. Some sentences deserve to be cited, though the article (availa ble from Free Palestine, PO Box 492, London SW7) should be studied in full. Said Mr Nes, ". . . today that association" between the US and Israel "is far closer in all areas, defence, economic collaboration, intelligence exchange, common citizenship, and mutual diplomatic support than that enjoyed, for example, between the US and Great Britain." But Mr Nes disclosed, ". . the nuclear reactors, in Dimona and Nahal Sorek, have been reported for several years to be producing plutonium sufficient for ten 25-kiloton bombs a year. . . . Through a study, prepared at White House request, by the Rand Corporation of California" — near Mr Nixon's residences and costly flagpoles — "we provided Israel with the most advanced technical and political data on the effective use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.... In contrast with our intense opposition to France's nuclear development, the US has supported Israel virtually in an identical policy. ..." What, then, is to be said of Dr Kissinger's promises of aid to Egypt and to Israel?
Readers will now follow the logical French disdain for the Kissinger plans, to 'confront' the Arab states over supplies of oil. Only British newspapers can explain the situation to British electors, and this they have signally failed to do. Why? By whose pressures? I should recall that King Feisal was forthright when Kissinger called (and issued the usual moronic nonstatement) in 1973 — His Majesty warned that, for years the Arab rulers had begged him to explain to American and British friends that, 'action' would be taken if the procrastination over the departure ot Israeli troops from all conquered Arab territories continued. The Arabs had silently waited, for honourable steps to follow the entire world's cry, for justice, in November 1973. I do not recall any of our papers explaining properly why the West faces the disastrous, catastrophic, rise in the price of oil, and the serious danger of an embargo, once again. And if the 'dissident' strategists from Germany now resting in London, smile com fortably with the promise that Russian arms cannot or will not deflect threats of American military intervention in the oil states, I suggest the lesson of Stalingrad should be learnt in time. Marshal Gretchko is on the alert. Besides, Arab rulers may have foolishly bought enor mous stocks of equipment, but they have also prepared to destroy the oil wells, at the approach of real danger. The British press seems wholly committed to the fatal glamour of calmly awaiting the nation's economic death, shameful collapse, to prove that Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West was superbly accurate. But a few Labour politicians and right-wing Tories could stir the conscience of the country, and insist on the truth being told in our press. The likely Arab oil embargo can, I am convinced, be avoided, and price of oil might be reduced. But, it is essential to show the vulnerable King Feisal and the Amir of Kuwait that Britain will publicly demand the immediate Israeli with drawal from all Arab lands occupied in June 1967; that she will ask that the Palestinians be given the little strip of their own, to them sacred land, and that adequate compensation will promptly be paid for their miseries and exile over twenty-five years; and also demand that the possible fatal 'pressures' by Israeli politicians in the US and inside the Soviet Union be ended, overnight. If Israel shuffles its
feet, London must save the British people from unprecedented political and economic revolu
tions and miseries by immediately recalling the British Mission in Tel Aviv and banning all exports of sterling to Israel.
That does not mean war, but it does imply an instant embargo on the alleged secret sale from London to Israel of 400 Centurion tanks worth
£30 million. The people would resent the provocation, and the reversal of the Conserva tive policy in 1967. Let Mr Wilson ask a friend of the ruler to invite King Feisal to receive Sir Alec Douglas-Home, with a mission of realists, non-Zionist Jews included, to say, belatedly, "Mea culpa.. .. "That is a real olive branch. Sir Alec is one of the few men in politics to have seen the text of the David Nes bombshell. He read it — years after the Times printed and later "censored" the article.
Today there is the lead, given at the Paris summit, by President Giscard and Mr Breznev; both demanded, last month, that Israeli trooPs leave all Arab territories occupied in June i967King Feisal's fall would precipitate a third world war which would be fatal for us all.
George Bilaink in is a former diplomatic correspondent specialising in Arab and Middle East affairs
Previous page
