to a head the situation in the soft left is the making of slates for the elections to National Executive Committee (NEC). In line with the logic of his call for work between the LLL and LCC Livingstone circulated to the General Committee of the Brent East party before the LCC executive on 3 April a document innicating the platform on which he intended to run for the NEC and which specifically calied for support for existing Campaign Group members Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Audrey Wise and Jo Richardson. Livingstone had earlier publicly attacked the ICC at a meeting in London for seeking to remove Joan Maynard from the NEC.
The demand for the LCC to support the Campaign Group members of the NEC, together with the policy issues raised, clearly provided practical touchstone for whether the LCC intendaim was to unite with the right wing against the left.
What is clear is that this choice is now oulined perfectly openly in front of the entire party. The right wing of the LCC, around Clause 4, have nothing whatever to do with the left in the party. They aim in practice at a bloc with the right against the left and are nothing more than a fifth column of the right inside the left. That is now clear. open. and in front of the The explosion in the soft left opens the way to a political clarification of the entire situation in the party. In this new situation: what must be put in the forefront is clear politics. Because what the left does next will be done in front of millions of people and affect the lives of nunaicas or tousanas ordabour move' ment activists. What the left does now is not about petty manouevrings but about the lives of millions of people. It must raise its historical perspective to that level.
Socialist Action 10 April 1987 ISRAEL IS putting on trial Morddechai Vananu — a nuclear technician who last year leaked to the Sunday Times details of Israel's capacity to manufacture atomic weapons and who was kidnapped by Israeli intelligence in London. Vanunu's revelations what was already known political and military circles - that Israel had been nuclear weapons for almost two decades. What is not so widely known however is that one of its chief partners in this is South Africa. In this article, shortened from the CND journal Sanity, JANE HUNTER outlines deadly nuclear relation between Israel and the apartheid state.
IN 1979 Israel and South tested a nuclear weapon. It known whether or not the test successful, The issue did not go away. 1985, South Africa hinted that it had the ability to build two nuclear bombs a year. It has recently been ascertainpublicised in constructing the Africa is not was In weapons who had nuclear previous OUl that built the Israel weapons possession refusal to the first weapons to their to deliberately the atmosphere, existing targets. yield in 1981, jugation government.
fall democratic - thereby letting theii sign the Nuclear Non proliferation Treaty speak for itselt Israel always says that it will not br to 'introduce nuclear the Middle East. But neighbours who might contemplate rallying opposition to the apartheid regime, or the Israeli occupation of Arab territory, are left with a distinct impression that their population cen tres would be at risk — especially as both countries presently dominate regions by conventional, military, and political means.
It is also likely that both Israel and South Africa have settled on small, 'tactical' nuclear weapons. According one analyst, the 1979 test was ambiguous. It released only a small amount of radiation into signifying either. a low-yield weapon or a 'dud'. Small weapons that would not destroy Israeli cities would be preferred by a country close to its potential Tested For its part, South Africa might snarl and slash at its neighbours. But it must be well aware that the ultimate challenge to apartheid will come from a long-suffering domestic population. Most ominously, maps in the posses-