Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Official Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 41 No. 7. April 10 1978

Middle East — Big Time Wrestling

page 3

Middle East

Big Time Wrestling

Last Tuesday, Zaitan Atashi, an Arab member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) spoke at a forum in the Union Hall. The session was a valuable lesson in democracy, Zionism and the value placed on open debate by the various parties who took part.

Atashi began by stressing that his views were not necessarily those of his government (he belongs to the Democratic Movement for Change Party which helps form Menachem Begin's coalition majority). His aim, he stated, was to "clarify certain views held by certain people." The picture he painted of Israel and the justifications he gave for Israel's actions undoubtedly did that. One theme ran through everything he said: his vision of democracy and unity in Israel. The following points were made to support this argument: Arabic and Hebrew are both first languages, and although there are only seven Arab members of the Knesset there could be more, there could be less. There is no state religion and religious freedom prevails throughout the country. There are no religious parties.

Things Start to Hot up........

Things Start to Hot up........

Atashi admitted that many people still feel unequal and unhappy, but pointed out that this was so in any "democratic" society. Israel, however, is "the only country in the area to give this privilege of being a free Israeli, to speak out, voice an opinion and criticise the Israeli government." It is "an example to other societies and communities in the world and especially in the Middle East." The aim of the government is to "Israelize all Israelis', and in doing this it "has now reached a very satisfactory situation."

Atashi did add that there is one exception to the rule of equality: Arabs who do not do their military training cannot gain employment in any profession or government department connected with the defence forces. He did not say how far this restriction carried.

On Recognising Independence

After talking about the situation inside Israel Atashi began to explain its foreign policy. "As long as our independence is not accepted I do not forsee peace in the Middle East," he said, adding a little later the claim, "we do not deny independence to our neighbouring states."

This naturally led to the topic of Lebanon. "Israel went into Lebanon. I shouldn't deny any facts," asserted Atashi. He reminded the audience that the PLO is now fighting the UN troops, saying that this made him glad (presumably because the world could now see what sort of people the PLO are).

Although he made several references to PLO activities in the region Atashi did not seem to base his justification for the invasion on the retaliation line first adopted by Israel and its supporters. He argued that the conflict in Lebanon which flared up a few years ago was not between rightist and leftist groups, but was a religious conflict.

Turning to other Arab states, he said that since Jordan and Syria had expelled the PLO Lebanon was the only country in the region which tolerated their presence. The two points somehow coincided and indicated that Israel actually owed it to Lebanon to free it from PLO influences.

Although during his speech there were v very few interjections from the floor, on this point he was asked if that meant South Africa was justified in invading Angola to eliminate SWAPO. Atashi's answer was that he wan't an expert on southern Africa and didn't see how the two issues were related.

The emphasis on his views not being necessarily representative came into its own when he allowed that Israel would have to "withdraw substantially from territories occupied since 1967." Asked how far he said he wasn't a strategist and didn't know, but that it would have to be within "secure defensible borders."

Atashi finished his speech by telling everyone that Israel was the only country in the world which had managed to withstand four wars; wars directed at liquidating the state.

The Mood Changes

Then came the questions. Andrew Tees asked what we in New Zealand could do to help bring about peace in the Middle East and was told, "we are in no need of advice on how to create a democratic, secular Palestinian state." Binational states claimes Atashi, always end in civil war.

Back to the question of Southern Lebanon he said "There is full justification for any sovereign state to invade another if threatened." This was again related to Angola, and this time Atashi defiantly admitted, "I accept the strategy".

If the law treated everyone as equal, someone asked, why was it that any Jew in the world could gain automatic citizenship in Israel but that the Palestinians were not allowed to return to their homeland? This was a law Atashi said he didn't agree with.

The land laws, however, were something he did agree with. Repeated questions were asked about what percentage of the land was owned by the Jewish National Fund, an organisation set up many years before the state of Israel was established with the express aim of buying up Palesinian land and keeping it in Jewish hands. Atashi became very angry but would not answer except to say, "This is my state land." Could Arabs lease the land? he was asked. Again there was no answer except a suggestion that critics should go to Israel and see for themselves how well every-think worked.

This was to be the pattern. Atashi would refuse to answer a question, audience members would demand one and Atashi would shout that Israel had the right to act in its own interests and we should go there ourselves.

Speaking Rights [unclear: Defied]

The meeting really heated up when Don Carson (ex-NZUSA IVP and currently Massey's International Affairs Officer) went to the microphone. He had been speaking for about 20 seconds when the Chairperson La Heyman, encouraged by Atashi and some members of the audience, decided that he wasn't going to be allowed to speak anymore. While Heyman did his best to shout Carson down and take the microphone from him, the latter tried to continue.

Amid a barrage of insults and complaints from the floor, and with Heyman reaching round him to grab the micro-phone, Carson asked how Israel could be considered as a democracy when it had political prisoners and exiled opponents, when Atashi could tour the world defending the state but four mayors from the West Bank were not allowed to testify before the UN on Israeli actions on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Atashi replied "I speak on behalf of Israel and not on behalf of the West Bank ...Israel should not accept any biased policy from abroad, including the UN" His even temper during the speech had by now completely given way to a barely supressed rage.

Carson sat down and others tried to speak, but the Zionists in the audience were in full flight and didn't seem very interested in debate. Some people did manage to get their points in. "How can you sleep when the vast majority of Palestinians lable you as a traitor and a liar?" shouted one person.

Shortly afterwards Heyman announced that Atashi had to leave as he hadn't had his lunch. The time was 1.10 pm; Atashi had been ther for just over half the proper time, given a long speech which was listened to in relative quietness, avoided answering questions and then left! He did not come to debate, he claimed as he left the rostrum. It was the first "forum" at Vic. I have seen where the participants did not attempt to join in and where the guest speaker would not accept that his views were open to question and where he did not recognise an obligation to try to defend them.

The Debate Continues

But the debate was not over. Carson again went up to the microphone and invited those present to continue. The abuse continued alright, but further points were made.

Someone brought up the matter of the holocaust. Carson replied that the holocaust had been used as an excuse for establishing Israel in Palestine, although it was three years after the war and there was obviously no need to guard against the anti-semetic side of nazism. Did Hitler's actions give Jewish people the right to dispossess the Palestinians of their land?

Don Carson Attempts to Speak.

Don Carson Attempts to Speak.

Zaitan Atashi

Zaitan Atashi

Mike Treen followed elaborating on the land laws which prohibit Arabs from leasing Jewish National Fund land. This was answered by an Israeli who stated that the JNF bought land because the Jewish people claimed rights in the area. "You can show things in an ugly way," she said, "and you can show the same things in a nice way." This speaker later suggested that the Immigration laws were fair because Israel could not be expected to admit the "enemy".

What about the treatment of Jews in Arab states? someone asked. Carson answered this, calling the issue a bogey. "It is based on the racist idea that discrimination elsewhere means Israeli discrimination should exist," he argued.

The Methods of Expansionism

The question of Israeli expansionism was again raised. Somebody noted that it is not surprising Israel has fought well, considering it receives 48% of all US foreign aid. PLO attacks were cited, and Dave Macpherson (ex-NZUSA Research Officer) asked why anti-personell cluster bombs were used on the refugee camps if elimination of the PLO was the aim. One thousand people were killed in the invasion, and yet only one real PLO target was attacked. Was not Israel trying to do exactly what Hitler had done 35 years ago?

Heyman suggested that in a war it is difficult to know who kills whom, so a good proportion of those now dead had actually been killed by the PLO, not the Israelis.

No one, of course, had the last say. Carson outlined his view of Israel, as a state set up not just as somewhere for the Jewish peole to live, but for them to do so so at the expense of the people already living in the area. The PLO aim was for a democratic secular state where all could live together. Israel would never accept this.

No one had an argument to refute any of this, or if they did they were more content to engage in the easier practice of trying to disrupt the meeting. The grand claims of democracy made by Atashi at the beginning contrasted sharply with the conduct of his followers.

They contrast too with the Israeli record in the Middle East. Atashi can talk till he's blue in the face about Israeli respect for the sovereign territory of other states and poeples, but until Israel gives up its stolen land he cannot expect to achieve much credibility.

Simon Wilson