Bourguiba's proposal out of hand. Nasser said he refused to accept coexistence with Israel, "which is an imperialist base." Unfortunately, he had nothing to suggest but the completely unrealistic demand to implement
the 1947 resolution of the United Nations on the partition of Palestine. This demand, which has also been advanced by the Communist parties of the countries in the Arab East, is in complete opposition to the interests of the Arab socialist revolution. )
What Bourguiba really sought was to pose an "alternative as against Nasserts,"* This was correctly and gladly noted in the. April 25 issue of the Tel-Aviv daily Haaretz... The revolutionary trend in the Arab world is becoming more and more of a threat to imperialism, That is why a pro-imperialist alternative is required that would help to isolate Algeria and Egypt. Bourguiba's proposal would help fill this need.
Bourguiba serves both French and American imperialism. And while they have divergent interests in the Arab world and they are divided by interimperialist contradictions, they could use a common alternative to the Arab revolution.
At each meeting of the Arab heads of state, conflicts which reflect the contradictions between reaction and revolutionary needs become more and more acute,
Hassin Haikal, a journalist in Nasser's inner circle, very clearly expressed the Egyptian regime's attitude toward Tsraél: "One must frankly stase that a collision (between the Arab top conferences and the possibilities of the Arab revolution) is approaching, and if there is no escape from ’such a collision, I would unhesitatingly choose the possibility of the Arab revolution, as it is the only road which leads to the main goal. Also there is no, doubt that Israel represents the main danger to the Arab revolution, ~ because on the one hand it is backed by imperialism, which is still in power in many parts of the Arab world through its interests, commitments and relations, and on the other hand it supports Arab reaction and fosters its retreat in the face of imperialism, This means that the conflict with Israel does not take place in a vacuum but is linked with the aggressive powers of world imperialism on the one hand and with local feudalism, reaction and its exploitive ruling positions on the other." (Haikal seems to have forgotten that not 6nly imperialism but also the Soviet Union actively participated in creating the state of Israel in the 1947-49 period.)
The quotation clearly indicates the anti-imperialist road the Nasser regime is traveling. If this is placed in the context of revolutionary potentialities in Egypt, it is possible to better understand the fears of imperialism and the real background of Bourguibats statement.
In its April 13 issue, the Hebrew daily Haaretz reproduced an interview with De la Gorce, a "left" supporter of de Gaulle and collaborator of the weekly Jeune Afrique, which enjoys Bourguibats patronage. De la Gorce knows his way around the Arab world and he
is much in favor of Bourguiba's pro=French and neocolonialist activities. Nevertheless he is realistic in this interview. He states that Bourguiba's proposal of a federation can't solve the problem of Israel, because Bourguiba is an agent of the West. He doesn't state, of course, that Bourguiba is linked to the Zionist regime of Israel precisely because of his political nature. .
"They (the left forces in the Arab countries) write and. speak against Israel, but for them it is a secondary business. In their circles there is none of the deep hostility existing among the. nationalists. Their main critérion is whether Israel remains allied to the Western bloc, whether it is a tool of America, The more Israel appears to be an ally of the USA and the West, the more. the - Egyptian left regards it as an enemy, a tool of the imperialist camp eeethey certainly don't assume that war is the only solution, that Israel should be destroyed. This means that any step taken by Israel to prove that it is not. linked to the West, any shift in its balancing act between the blocs, would strongly influence Egypt and the Arab world,"
Continuing, he says that "if in the future a positive solution can be found (for Israel), this could be accomplished only by a left revolutionary state, strong enough not to fear the accusation that it has capitulated to the West. Bourguiba's greatest weakness is the fact that he is allied to the West....The job will have to be done by a strong, left leader.” ‘(Emphasis added. )
The conflict between Israel and the Arabs can only be solved in alliance with the Arab revolution, against imperialism. It cannot be overcome by nice-sounding phrases from a neocolonialist like Bourguiba, The conflict in the final analysis involves the struggle of the Arab revolution against an imperialist bulwark in its own sphere. What is required is the socialist unification of the Arab world and its federation with a socialist Israel,