To the Editor.
I have been working with the United Farm Workers Organising Committee for four years (on the California Grape Strike)-for the past year acting as their representative in the Ü.K.
and, having received a great deal of help from the GWU. I was very surprised to read your attack on them in Cade's Column of your September 15th issue. I feel that you must have received some very misleading information and would like to set the record straight.
You say of the T&G that "they were not prepared to back any militant action by dockers or market workers" when, in fact, the Union went out of its way to make it clear that any dispute arising from such action would get full backing.
Subsequently, official negotiations took place between T&G officers and employers in Covent Garden and Birmingham markets and also shipping lines, getting them to agree to stop the importation of scab grapes, for which the U.K. had been an important market. This really hurt the growers.
As you rightly point out, many rank-and-file members also did a great deal to help us, and I know of no disciplinary action taken by the T&G against any of them.
Cesar Chavez has written to the T&G thanking the Union for its assistance which was a vital factor in bringing the 5-year strike to its victorious conclusion.
My personal opinion is that the TGWU, in this situation, took the right action, both for us and for their own members. Had the leadership issued official instructions to black the grapes in the first place, the importers could have taken egal action and obtained substantial damages from the Union. I'm sure you'll agree that this would hardly have benefited the working class. Also, I feel that it is better for a union to support shop floor action rather than issue I would agree that there is a lot to criticise in trade unions today, but I also think that positive factors should be pointed out, supported and encouraged whenever possible and, in this context, I feel that credit should be given to the TGWU for the help which it has given us. Fraternally, Donna Haber, U.K. Representative, United Farm Workers Organising Committee. 17 Fife Terrace, London N.1.
Elaine Elinson, official of the Farm Workers Organising ittee, can bear out all facts regarding the grape ce in the last Cade's Column. At no time during the lute did the T&G advise its members to "black scab grapes. It is true that during the dispute indivmembers in their rank-and-file capacity affordec Elinson all possible assistance, the most activ hese being Brian Nicholson, Frank Shilling, Terry ett, and Alan Sutton. It is an undoubted fact that en the men at Tilbury employed on the Johnson is refused to handle scab ficers in the area, Bros. H. Freeman and Bert Saun srupes, ine two Dame issued instructions for them to work the cargo.
1 Haber is certainly misinformed when she impliesthe port employers would have taken legal in against dockers in dispute. Fortunately, Cde.
er, we do not have the Taft-Hartley Act or the adary Boycott Laws on statute in this country.
you success in all your future militant actions ost the United State fruit interests.
common fairness-and I do always strive for that-I must admit that the lamentably mistaken Israeli Jews as a whole have indeed had two saving points in their favour: they originally meant to settle in peacefully in their oldtime homeland with the Arab latecomers who had nothing to fear logically, for they could always outnumber them in the end, but the selfish Arab leaders used force first and started the whole violent dispute; and the minority Jews in the area have very naturally in consequence been frightened and have lost their heads, shortsightedly training themselves to rely entirely on force (thus learning the worst side of the Arab example, and feeling themselves too driven to the wall-either of the desert or the sea-to behave decently and prevent their own rapacious elements coming to the fore. So first the Arabs spoilt matters, by opposing the rational and always restricted Jewish return, instead of humanely welcoming back their persecuted wandering brothers (and discreetly making sure, as they could well have done, that the latter would never dominate more than a small, certainly permissible area of their own). And afterwards, apart from praiseworthy but always completely overweighted minority efforts, the Jews, instead of persistently using their more developed Western political potentialities, grew more and more recalcitrant and forcingly unyielding. The two sides interacted more and more fatally. The psychology of the matter is basically simple in the extreme, each people offending the other's national pride more and more until the clash has now become totally fatal and absolutely irreparable by their own nullified efforts. Up to now, the Great Powers, for their own interests, have merely stirred up the strife more and more too. But at last, world peace being obviously finally threatened, I think they will have to impose a Middle Eastern peace, and by depriving the Israelis of their 1967 vainglorious conquests, save a sufficientlv independent small Israel and at the same time necessarily also restore the Palestinians to their reasonable birthright thereby. If the Israelis are saved-and, in spite of their terrible misdeeds, brought about, after all, largely by fear, I do not think sane humans need say they must be delivered up to probably unrestrained Arab revenge-the Palestinians must avoidably be saved too; the saving of the misguided Israelis can, in fact, only be done by the saving of the unfortunate Palestinians, and in no other way. At the same time, as Nasser nowadays says, the whole general quarrel with the Arabs can gradually be settled under international auspices; he, of course, quite rightly insists that no progress can be made at all without settling the refugee problem first, and at any rate partially in Israel. How to do it without destroying Israel, he does not seem to have worried about sufficiently. But others must bring him that worry. Dr. Goldmann might have done. Mr. Weinstock, I am afraid not. He surely means well, but I do hope that at least he will sort out his theses better yet. With Russian-sanctioned U.N. armies, there is still a way through. Otherwise, I admit that Israel will disappear from the map after further unlimited bloodshed, a fate brought on inevitably by crass fear involving crass folly. I reiterate finally that no charge can reasonably be brought against Jewish Zionism as such. Its founder always intended it to be gentle; he was ready to accept even historically unattractive Uganda if political difficulties were too great. No: the charge of all of us must be against an Israeli government, consistently misguiding its people in an admittedly frightened but childish lack of psychological understanding, and inept incompetence.
NATHAN WEINSTOCK REPLIES: hand, that the Palestinian problem is essentially the problem of the colonial-type relationship. between Jews and Arabs as embodied in the legal (Laws of Return and on Nationality), economical, social (discrimination), and political (no self-determination for Palestinians) framework of the Zionist state. Therefore, we think that even in the event of some sort of permanent Socialism about anyway? So the first step forward consists in setting up a united Arab-Israeli front against Zionism, imperialism and Arab reaction.
Nathan Weinstock
----- pull-quotes -----
bureaucratic directives to the membership from above, which might only have modest support.