.jpg)
Salient. Official Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 41 No. 19. July 31 1978
The Middle East
The Middle East
Earlier this year Israeli Arab Zaitan Atashi spoke at a forum in the Union Hall. His presence, and Salient's reporting of it sparked off a big controversy concerning the situation in the Middle East, the nature of Zionism and the conditions of life for all the peoples living in the Palestine/Israel area.
This week there will be another forum on the Middle East, organized by the Progressive Students' Alliance and the Jewish Students' Society. There will be two speakers: Don Carson, currently International Affairs Officer at Massey University and a long time advocate of the rights of the Palestinians to a homeland; and Michael Hirschfeld, an ex-student leader and prominent zoinist. Israeli ambassador Yakhov Morris was invited but refused to debate with anyone except the Egyptian ambassador. Although he has debated with people of "lesser rank" before it is perhaps significant that this is not the first time he has refused to meet Carson on a public platform.)
The topic of the debate will be: Do the Palestinians have a right to a homeland? The forum has been organised so that all students will have a chance to hear and participate in an open debate on the issue.
The following articles are written by supporters of each camp and are intended as a background to the forum.
Anti-zionis or Anti-Semitism
This article was condensed from an interview conducted by La Heymann and Dianne Davis, two members of the Jewish Students Society, with Zaitan Atashi, arab member of the Israeli parliament and a supporter of the policies of the present Israeli government.
Atashi is a Druze member of the Democratic Movement for Change, one of the members of Prime Minister Begin's coalition. He presently lectures part-time in political science at Haifa University and worked as a TV journalist as well as having represented Israel at the UN and the US Embassy in Washington.
Here he gives his views on the Israeli state and related questions.
Racist Ideology VS Democratic Rights
"Nazi", "Jew hater", "Anti-semite", "Racist" ... These are insults often flung at supporters of the rights of the Palestinians during campus debates on the Middle East; or, for that matter, during debates on the Palestine question all over the world. These insults arise out of the confusion of anti-semitism with anti-zionism, even though the two are very different.
Anti-semitism is racism. Although both arabs and jews are both Semitic peoples, anti-semitism is commonly used to mean anti-jewish. It's an ideology which all fair-minded people will fight against, just as they'll fight against the racism of groups like the National Front. The clearest and most horrifying example of anti-semitism this century was, of course, the persecution and mass slaughter of jews in Nazi Germany.
Anti-zionism is opposition to the Zionist movement. This movement was born in Europe in the late nineteenth century. It believes in the fostering of jewish national sentiment and consciousness and the right of jews to establish a monocultural jewish state in Palestine. nb. Although the Zionists claim they have a historical right to Palestine they originally considered several sites for their "homeland" including Argentina and Uganda, before they decided on Palestine.
The focus of the zionist movement is Israel, the Zionist state. It was settled at the expense of the Palestinians already living there, many of whom were forced to become refugees. Jews from anywhere in the world can, under Israeli law, go to Israel and take up Israeli citizenship.
But, not all jews are Zionists, and the zionist philosophy is totally seperate from the jewish religion, Judaism; though many zionist jews pretend they are the same thing. Not all jews believe that the "State of Israel" should exist or that jews have a right to take land from the Palestinians and settle it themselves.
In 1973 zionist leader Moshe Dayan said: "The State of Israel was established at the expense of the arabs and on their land. We did not come into an empty space. There was arab settlement here. We are settling jews in places that were settled by arabs. We are transforming an arab country into a jewish country." (Yedioth Aharonoth 10/5/73)
Many people, including many jews, do not believe the Zionists have the right to do this. They believe jews are citizens of the country in which they are born, and should work with their fellow countrymen for their own country. For instance, jews born in New Zealand are New Zealanders, not Israelis.
So all over the world, including here in New Zealand, there are many people, including jews, who are anti-zionist; who are opposed to the zionist movement and who support the rights of the Palestinians.
Rather than coming right out and attacking those who support the rights of the Palestinians, many Zionists hide behind a smokescreen by trying to brand them as racists.
In fact, the Zionists themselves have a stake in keeping anti-semitism alive. It provides the rationale for the formation of the jewish state. In a world without anti-semitism there is no need for Israel. For example, in "The Zionist Idea" Arthur Herzberg wrote: "The assumption that anti-semitism 'makes sense' and that it can be put to constructive use — this is at once the subtlest, most daring and most optimistic conception to be found in political Zionism."
And again, Uizak Greenbaum, a top zionist leader, in his book "Beimei Hurban Veshoa" said: "When they asked me, couldn't you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal Funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said No! and I say again No! In my opinion one should resist this wave which pushes the zionist activities into secondary importance." In other words, if all the jews could be saved zionist activities would become secondary. Israel could only be born if all the jews were not saved so using zionist money to save the lives of European jews was unacceptable.
.jpg)
Another zionist, U. Harray, made this point even more blatantly: "Of course it is not customary for us to talk about it in public, but many of us felt a tiny bit of joy when we read newspaper reports about the swastika epidemic in Europe in 1960 or about pro-Nazi movements in Argentina." (Uedioth Aharonoth 9/2/69)
"A tiny bit of joy" ... these few words speak volumes about the underlying zionist attitude towards anti-semitism. In fact the Zionist leadership has not only applauded it both secretly and openly; zionist agents have been dispatched to create so-called "anti-semitic atrocities" such as an incident in Iraq when a synogogue was burned: a crime which zionist agents inside Israel have admitted to. The expressed aim was to create a situation in which jews don't feel integrated citizens in the country of their birth and are terrified into emigrating to Israel.
A final example of the close inter-relationship between Zionism and anti-semitism comes from the highest level of zionist leadership: in 1938 the terrible pogroms and mass murders were underway in Nazi Germany, and some governments were making weak and belated attempts to help with the evacuation and migration of jewish refugees. But on Dec. 17 1938, David Ben Gurion (who became first Prune Minister of Israel) wrote to the zionist executive:
"The jewish problem is not now what it used to be. The fate of jews in Germany is not an end but a beginning. Other anti-semitic states will learn from Hitler. Millions of jews face annihilation, the refugee problem has assumed world-wide proportions and urgency. Britain is trying to seperate the issue of the refugees from that of Palestine. It is assisted by the anti-zionist jews. The dimensions of the refugee problem demand an immediate territorial solution: if Palestine will not absorb them, another territory will, Zionism is endangered.
"All other territorial solutions, certain to fail, will demand enormous sums of money. If jews will have to choose between the refugees, saving jews from concentration camps, and assisting a national museum in Palestine, mercy will have the upper hand and the whole energy of the people will be channeled into saving jews from various countries. Zionism will be struck off the agenda, not only in world public opinion, in Britain and the USA, but elsewhere in jewish public opinion. If we allow a separation between the refugees problem and the Palestine problem we are risking the existence of Zionism."
Thus David Ben Gurion condemns himself out of his own mouth: "millions of jews face annihilation" but "zionism is endangered" because mercy would have the upper hand in saving the lives of jews, rather than sending them to Israel. The implications of Ben Gurion's words are shocking.
The saving of jewish lives from Hitler is considered by Ben Gurion as a potential threat to Zionism, unless they are brought to Palestine. When Zionism had to choose between the jewish people and the jewish state it never hesitated to prefer the latter.
So we can see that it is not true that supporters of the Palestinians are anti-semitic. In fact many of them are themselves Jewish. They are opposed to the political philosophy of Zionism. While the Zionists hide behind their cries of "jew hater", they are doing nothing to fight the racist doctrine of anti-semitism. In fact, they have a stake in keeping it alive.
Those who are struggling for the rights of the Palestinians do not want to throw the jews into the sea. They want to live in peace in a democratic and secular state. Fatah leader Salah Khalf sums it up: "We know that the subject of Jewish religion and jews is separate from the subject of Zionism and its imperialist, colonialists and racist movement. Thus, when we declare that our struggle aims at establishing a democratic Palestinian state, it is not a tactic but a true and initial materialisation of our strategy. This is so because we believe that there are numerous excellent individuals among the jews with whom we can live in peace."
Sarah Brown
The Voice of Israel
.jpg)
The impression given of Israel by the pro-PLO and anti-Israel or anti-zionist bodies is that Israel is a totalitarian Jewish state, giving no rights or privileges to any Arab, but this is not so. Israel is a free, democratic, secular state; the only free state in the whole Middle East area.
No-one can brand the State of Israel as racist, that is a racism institutionalized by discriminatory laws and/or government infrastructure. That is not to say Israel is devoid of racism; it exists as it does in all countries where there are two or more races living together. So it exists in Israel too but not just between Jewish people and Arab Moslems, but also between Israeli Jews, Arab Jews, Russian Jews, European Jews etc. Similarly some of those groups may feel that they are less equal than other ethnic groups, but this is an international phenomena.
As far as the law is concerned all Arabs who remained in Israel after 1948 have Israeli citizenship. They, like all other ethnic groups in Israel, have equal political rights — they can vote in both national and local body elections, and they can be elected to the Parliament (Knesset). In fact at present there are seven Arabs, who are not Jewish, who are members of the Knesset, one of whom, Abdul Aziz Zouabi is Deputy Minister of Health.
Israeli Freedoms
In terms of religious rights Israel is un unique in the world; the Moslem Arab, Christian Arab, Druze Arab as well as the various Jewish communities all have their own shrines and courts, which involve marriage and divorce ceremonies and rulings, and preserves their heritage.
Language is another aspect of the freedoms in Israel. Hebrew and Arabic are both first languages in Israel; there is no legal preference for either one. Any Arab can speak arabic in any court, parliamentary speech, anywhere, and he can also correspond with Ministers of Parliament in Arabic and must in turn be replied to in Arabic. There is no comparison with any other country in the area. This is supported by Time magazine (March 13 1978) which gave Israel one of the highest ratings for civil liberties, not only in the Middle East, but also in the world. This is marked contrast to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen which received particularly low ratings.
These and other Middle East states were criticized for civil rights violations such as the imprisonment and indefinite detainment of people, strict press censorship, the use of secret security police forces by the state to brutally control and suppress any dissent; methods included rape and torture as common forms of achieving co-operation. But in Israel no-one can be imprisoned without first being convicted by way of a proper and fair trial where a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.
Similarly freedom of speech is of prime importance in Israel. Anyone can openly criticize the government 24 hours a day. Israelis can write or speak against any Israeli political party or politician. In fact there exists in Israel a communist party which is pro-PLO and advocates the dissolution of the state of Israel. In this respect Israel is unique; what other country, facing the prospect of near-constant war designed to lead to its destruction, supports such full democratic rights of all its citizens?
After Defence, Education is the next highest item of expenditure in the government budget. The Knesset Education committee, which Zaitan Atashi is a member has as its major guiding principle the idea that the best way of rectifying a situation of social inequality is by way of education. For example after 1948 the illiteracy rate among Moslem Arabs in Israel was about 95%; now their literacy rate is about 90%.
School is free and compulsory for all Israelis. The education system does not attempt to Judaize the population, but rather to Israelize the population.
Although NZUSA sponsored a motion through the Asian Students' Association (ASA) to expel the National Union of Israel Students (NU1S) for being racist, any person who has attained the standard qualification can attend the universities unrestricted.
University students (including Arabs) have the same democratic rights to demonstrate or protest as any other person in the rest of Israel, unlike students in other Middle East nations. Two years ago students at the University of Cairo (Egypt) were arrested and detained for long periods, accused by Egyptian authorities of "causing disorder".
The PLO
The first thing that has to be clarified in the Palestinian question is "who is a Palestinian?" They are people who are born in or descended from parents born in historic Palestine (which included Jordan, Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank). This of course brings into doubt the status of Yassir Arafat who was born in Egypt and spent only his childhood in the Gaza Strip. But it also makes many Israeli Jewish people (like Moshe Dayan) Palestinian too.
The PLO claims to be the voice of all Arab Palestinians, or at least to represent a consensus, but Atashi maintains that his fellow Israeli Arab Palestinians see them purely and simply as a terrorist group which aims at liquidating the state of Israel. He ways that if a PLO state were to be set up tomorrow not one Israeli Arab would move into it.
The image presented of the PLO is one of impoverished freedom fighters. However Time magazine reports that the PLO is funded to the tune of something like $100 million per year by the hard line Arab states (Libya, Algeria, Iraq, Syria etc.) As such they must be considered to be the wealthiest "freedom fighting" group ever to exist in the world to date.
Let us consider their image as freedom fighters. In September 1970 the PLO was expelled from Jordan for attempting to undermine its sovereignty and assassinate King Hussein. Following this the PLO sought refuge in Lebanon. Thus because of its meddling in the internal affairs of Lebanon, which was a finely balanced Christian/Moslem administration, civil war resulted. A civil war in which the PLO was the main protagonist, in which the PLO openly stated that its aim was to make Lebanon a true Moslem state, subservient to the Palestinian cause. The result has been the loss of Lebanon's sovereignty and the occupation of a "Syrian Peace Keeping Force": the end of the only other state besides Israel in the Middle East which attempted to form a democratic secular state.
There are several other points which make the PLO questionable. It presents a face which claims to be motivated by a Marxist ideology, yet nowhere in Marxian or Marxist ideology is it suggested that one proletariat genocide another proletariat. Such ideology promotes the concept of "workers of the world unite" to overthrow the bourgeois capitalists; it curses nationalism (such as the Palestinian nationalism inherent in the PLO) of any kind which works against this fundamental Marxian principle. So it is a pure bastardization of Marxist ideology for the PLO to label itself as Marxist inspired, for nationalism is the reason for its existence, and its covenant states that its aim is destruction not of the Israeli ruling class but of the whole Israeli/Jewish nation.
Another point which brings the PLO into question is that it has been outlawed from operating in many Arab states (Jordan, Egypt, Syria etc) by people the PLO considers are brothers. Why is this? Israel is committed to end the existence of the PLO, simply because it is an indescriminate terrorist organization whose actions are directed against Israeli sovereignty and civilians.
This is what the operation into Southern Lebanon was all about. Not undermining Lebanese sovereignty but destroying the only base in the Middle East from which the PLO could operate (which hopefully, by reducing the PLO's power would enable Lebanon to operate more autonomously).
Unfortunately in the war between Israel and the PLO in South Lebanon many more Lebanese civilians were killed than PLO members. This is something which Israel regrets but this is an unfortunate reality of war. However Israel did destroy the physical PLO bases which now, of course, have placed the PLO in a strategic dilemma of how to continue their operations.
The Democratic Secular State Idea
Recently the idea of a democratic secular state as the ultimate solution to the Palestinian problem has come to the fore. There are several points to be mentioned here. Firstly Israel is already a democratic secular state unlike other states in the Middle East.
Historically the opportunities to form such an Arab state (other than Jordan) have not been considered. In the 1948 partition Arab-Palestinians could have formed a state in the two areas divided off with Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Instead the Arab Palestinians chose to attempt to destroy the state of Israel and replace it with a Palestinian Arab state. Only since this has failed has the rhetoric demanding such a state instead of Israel become prevalent.
Israel was set up in 1948 by the UN as a homeland and refuge for the Jewish people, who were persecuted and oppressed for thousands of years, and still are in places like the Soviet Union and Syria. The so-called Jewish problem reached a crisis point at the cesation of the Second World War with several hundred thousand Jewish people homeless and nationless after their liberation from the Nazi horror of the death camps. No country (including England, United States, New Zealand, etc.) was prepared to take in more than certain limited quotas of these refugees. With that historical situation in mind it is easy to understand why Israel was established. Israel still considers itself as a homeland and refuge for the Jewish people, particularly with the anti-semitic stance of such places as the Soviet Union. The Jewish people have the right of all peoples to live and be their own masters.
But the Israeli state does not view its 450,000 moslem Arab Palestinian, nor its Druze or Christian Arabs as any less of citizens with any less rights for them to regard Israel as their homeland than any of the Jewish groups in the population, despite Israel's identification as a Jewish national homeland. Although no-one in Israel has an inferior status, the Palestinian Arabs who left at the prompting of the Higher Arab Committee are still not allowed to return to live in Israel. Israel feels that because of the geopolitical situation after 1948, in which Israel's land area is only 20% of historic Palestine (the other 80% being Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank) the Arabs who left Israel ought to be accommodated within that area. Similarly Israel has been forced to accommodate Jewish people from the Arab countries (500,000 in 1948-49 and about 950,000 in total up to 1975).
Open Bridge Policy
This does not mean that Arabs cannot come into Israel. Since 1967 when the West Bank was occupied there has been an operation known as the 'Open Bridge Policy'.
The policy aims at fostering the free movement of people and trade between not only the West Bank and the East Bank (Jordan) but also with Israel. Any one from any part of the Arab world can travel across that bridge under certain conditions to visit relatives who live on the West Bank or in Gaza or in Israel, as well as to trade. In fact half a million Arabs each year take advantage of this policy to do that. During its 11 years of operation the policy has proved that co-existance between Arab and Israeli is possible.
Of course the propaganda about the West Bank emphasises only the bad things ("Bad news is good news") and does not bring out the positive actions of Israel in the area such as promoting industry, developing education amongst the Arab population etc. Because the West Bank is under martial law the civil rights situation is not as good as within the state of Israel itself and certainly not up to the standard Israel would like. But this can only be solved when the status of the West Bank is finally established by way of negotiations with all parties concerned.
Expansionism?
Israel is often accused of expansionism, but this is certainly not, and has never been a policy considered by the Israeli government. Israel has been attacked on several occasions (1948, 1967, 1973) and during the subsequent defensive action it took over and occupied territory. In 1956 it returned to Egypt the Sinai and Gaza taken in the 1948 war, in exchange for peace. The recently occupied land in South Lebanon was to be evacuated and left to the UN by June 13th. That is certainly not expansionism.
All presently occupied territories are negotiable in exchange for peace and security. Israel has learnt its lesson. It now needs, as would any country which is surrounded by neighbours whose avowed aim is to destroy it, secure and defendable borders. If the problem in the peace negotiations was only a matter of territory, Israel would have given up occupied land in the name of peace years ago. Israel does not need the Sinai; nor all of the West Bank (although that area has to be considered seriously as it is Israel's main security problem).
This position that all territory occupied is negotiable was emphasised during the Begin/Sadat peace talks. There is a great desire on the part of all Israelis and the Israel government to reach a peace agreement with the Arab nations, and it seems the Egyptians have the same sentiments.
One of the main problems with Sadat's visit was that he spoke on behalf of all Arabs, even though he had not been given that mandate. Perhaps it would have been better if he had sought a bilateral agreement between Israel and Egypt. The main thing to be realized by all parties is that they all have to be prepared to make major concessions in order to reach an agreement, and not just for Israel to make the concessions.
South Africa
Israel's foreign policy is often criticized in terms of its trading relationship with South Africa. It is very easy to single out Israel for this sort of criticism, but it gives a false picture of South Africa's trading position and Israel's role in it. There are many countries, the so called non-aligned countries and the Third World countries, in particular, whose trade with South Africa exceeds that of Israel. The Arab country of Libya is such an example.
[unclear: Land] Expropriation
The expropriation of land in Israel is often pointed to by it's opponents as being stolen from the Arabs. No land is taken without compensation being paid in full, but naturally the original owners feel hard done by (but such is the case throughout the world). It has to be remembered that Israel has only existed since 1948 and it was necessary for the state to acquire land for public services, to build new towns, roads; generally to set up the whole public infrastructure (all countries in the world have laws of expropriation of land for public purposes.) Unfortunately it is the Arab population, because they owned the majority of the land in 1948, who suffered most from this expropriation.
The Proposed Arms Pact Deal
Israel objects to an arms pact deal linked with other Middle East countries because Israel is in a unique position, surrounded by countries and organizations avowed to destroy it, and under constant threat of attack. Because of this unique situation Israel considers that it ought to be dealt with separately so that these factors can be taken into account.
In rounding off his interview Zaitan Atashi said that he considered the main reason why certain elements in the Middle East are so committed to the destruction of Israel is that they want to annihilate any non-Arab, non-Islamic entity in the Middle East, and Israel is the only country which falls into this category.
1. The Druze Arab religion is a branch of Islam, which broke away from the parent faith in the 12th Century. It is a secret religion which does not accept converts. It considers themselves as having a religious bond with the land. There are some 250,000 Druze scattered over Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
No Longer a Forgotten People
The history of the Palestinian people is a sad and chequered one. In 1922 668,000 Arabs owned and lived on 98% of the land of Palestine. Today their entire country is controlled by the Jewish state of Israel and the Palestinians are scattered through-out the Arab countries. While international negotiators wrangle over talks to discuss the Palestine question and Israel creates new settlements on the occupied territories of the West Bank, a whole generation of young Palestinians who have never seen their home-land is growing up in squalid refugee camps.
Balfour Declaration
[unclear: In] any debate of the Palestinian question large number of declarations and letters [unclear: are] usually cited by each side as proof that [unclear: e] group they support has 'historical [unclear: ghts'] to Palestine. For instance, Zionist [unclear: aims] to Palestine rest heavily on the [unclear: four] Declaration of 2 November 1917[unclear: n] which the then British Secretary of [unclear: oreign] Affairs pledged British support for [unclear: e] "establishment in Palestine of a national [unclear: ome] for the Jewish people." This is a fine ample of the completely opportunist role [unclear: he] British have played in the region. Before [unclear: the] Declaration the British Government had [unclear: ade] several promises to the Arabs of [unclear: suprt] for their independence (including [unclear: destine]) in return for Arab help in the war [unclear: ainst] the Turks. Moreover the original [unclear: four] Declaration pledged to protect the [unclear: hts] of non-Jews in Palestine, yet on [unclear: ugust]11, 1919 Balfour wrote:
[unclear: in] Palestine we do not propose even to go rough the form of consulting the wishes the present inhabitants of the country.." [unclear: is] control of the Suez canal, and later oil [unclear: terests], assumed greater importance, [unclear: tish] pledges to the Palestinians were [unclear: nveniently] forgotten and the coincidence the interests of Zionism and British [unclear: imrialism] led to British support for the [unclear: onist] cause.
[unclear: to] how did Israel come into existence? [unclear: ter] World War One, the League of Nations [unclear: anted] Britain a mandate over Palestine, [unclear: ainst] the wishes of the Palestinian people. [unclear: is] mandate lasted from 1922 until the [unclear: itate] of Israel" was declared in 1948. [unclear: troughout] this period Jewish immigration Israel continued apace. - 1922, 83,794 [unclear: ws], 1931 174,610 Jews, 1944 554,000 Jews [unclear: e] Jewish Settlers attempted to purchase [unclear: ge] amounts of land but met with strong [unclear: retance] from the Palestinians. Most of the [unclear: 0,000] acres they did succeed in buying [unclear: niinly] from absentee owners) became the [unclear: operty] of the Jewish National Fund. This [unclear: nd] was then regarded as the inalienable [unclear: operty] of the Jewish people and the lease-[unclear: lder] was forbidden to employ 'non-Jewish. [unclear: bour.]
[unclear: eanwhile] the Palestinians stepped up [unclear: rikes] and armed struggle against the British [unclear: ministration,] and the increasing Jewish [unclear: Ionisation] continued. The Zionists formed [unclear: rrorist] organisations (including the Irgun, which current Israeli Prime Minister [unclear: fnahem] Begin was leader). These well-[unclear: med] organisations used violence as part of [unclear: the] Zionist moves to seize Palestine.
[unclear: the] largest single such act of violence [unclear: occured] on 22 July 1946 when a wing of the King [unclear: vid] Hotel in Jerusalem, housing the [unclear: Govern-cnt] secretariat and part of the military [unclear: quarters] was blown up, causing the [unclear: heath] of about 100 people (including many wish and Palestinian civilians).
1947 the British Government announced [unclear: at] the mandate had proved unworkable and [unclear: acting] arab proposals for independence (which included guarantees for Jewish minority rights) it placed the Palestine question before the United Nations.
Partition
A General Assembly Special Committee drew up a resolution (the 'partition resolution.) which divided Palestine into 6 principal parts. 3 of these parts (56% total area and most fertile land) were reserved for a Jewish state, the other 3 (43%) for an Arab state, with Jerusalem to be an international zone.
The Arabs (2/3 majority of country) rejected the partition on the grounds that it violated the provisions of the UN charter which gives a people the right to decide its own destiny. Zionists placed enormous pressures on member states opposed to partition. For instance, a Liberian delegate reported to the US State Department that the manner in which he had been approached to support partition amounted to 'attempted intimidation."
.jpg)
On November 29, 1947 the General Assembly adopted the plan of partition (33 - 13, 10 abstentions), and violent demonstrations broke out throughout Palestine. The UN met to consider suspending the partition plan and the Zionists decided to take the law into their own hands. Violence increased and the Irgun led by Begin, attacked the village of Deir Yassin; 254 men, women and children were massacred. In six months the Zionists drove 400,000 Palestinian arabs from their homes. Refugees poured across the borders into adjacent arab countries and to protect the Palestinian Arabs, arab armies entered Palestine.
In May 1948 the 'State of Israel' was declared; by the time armistices were concluded in early 1949 Israel controlled ¾ of the total land area of Palestine. As Moshe Dayan has said (Maariv 16-2-73)"to have a Jewish state one sovereignty must take the place of another, and Jews must take the place of arabs." The Zionists took the unusual step of not declaring the boundaries of the state and David Ben Gurion, the 1st Prime Minister of Israel, later stated that they extended "from the Nile to the Euphrates". It was obvious Israel's expansionism was not at an end.
Israel's Discriminatory Laws
There is no law in Israel which prevents discrimination against non-Jews. All such discrimination is completely legal. It is legal for a person to refuse to let a flat to an arab for instance. Insidious discrimination against non-Jews, such as this condoned by the law, is an everyday fact of living for Palestine arabs living in Israel.
As well as this unwritten discrimination, many of the actual laws of Israel are essentially anti-non-Jew. Some of these were passed soon after the 'State of Israel' was declared in 1948 and have never been repealed.
The Law of Return (1950) allows any Jew from anywhere in the world to immigrate to Israel and to reside there, yet Palestinian refugees do not have this right. Any Jew arriving in Israel automatically gains Israeli Nationality (Nationality Law 1952) yet a Palestinian arab must be 'naturalised' and fulfill stringent conditions to gain citizenship.
A series of land laws passed between 1945 and 1950 enabled vast areas of land belonging to Palestinian arabs to be confiscated. For example The Emergency Land Requisition (Regulation) Law, 1949 allowed government-appointed "competent authorities to requisition land or buildings needed for a number of purposes, including state defence, public security and the absorption of immigrants. Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, article 125 granted military Governors the power to declare specific areas closed. Palestinian arabs were thus forbidden to enter those areas to cultivate their land. These "uncultivated" lands could then be confiscated by the Minister of Agriculture under Emergency Regulations (Cultivation of Waste (Uncultivated) Lands) 1949. Then, under Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law, 1953, ownership of this confiscated land could be transferred to the State of Israel.
Powerful Foreign Friends
Israeli propaganda often tries to paint a picture of Israel as a weak unarmed country fighting alone. This is not true. The basis of the state of Israel is aggression. It is supported with arms, ammunition and funds by the USA, West Germany, Great Britain and France. In fact it is the watchdog of these countries in the Middle East and in 1968 Israel received about 10% of all aid given to under-developed countries. In 1972 there was an estimated $US760 million given to Israel in gifts, $US950 million in loans and US$12 million in investments. Only 3% of this flow of capital into Israel is in a form which calls for a return outflow of dividends, interest or capital. In short, Israel is a client state of imperialism.
Israel is the principal military power in the Middle East. In periods of full mobilisation it can field as many soldiers as its three principal bordering states. It has more tank specialists and pilots than all the arab countries put together. Furthermore Israel possesses nuclear reactors and has produced plutonium stocks estimated at enough for 20 bombs. Although consistently cagey on the question of its nuclear capability a delegation of 13 US Senators were recently refused permission to visit one of Israel's nuclear research reactors at Dimana in the Negev, a move which is seen as putting Israel's "peaceful" nuclear intentions in doubt.
The PLO
The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is the umbrella organisation comprised of a number of Palestinian groups, which represents the Palestinian people and has been recognised as their sole representative by the UN and by a range of countries including Finland, Malaysia and China.
The main aim of the PLO is the creation of a democratic secular state of Palestine, in which Muslims, Christians and Jews would share equal rights. It would not, as is commonly thought, mean Jews would be 'thrown into the sea, but, as the Palestinian National Council reiterated in March this year "All Israeli Jews who rejected the sectarian and discriminatory basis of Zionism would be free to remain as citizens of the new state".
Conclusion
In recent years the Palestine question has been increasingly in the news, and more and more people are aware of the sad plight of the Palestinian people. - a whole people either under occupation or uprooted from their homes. The justice of their struggle for self-determination is being realised. Even US President Jimmy Carter has mentioned the need for a Palestinian homeland. It seems that at last we are removing from the Palestinians the stigma of a forgotten people - and from ourselves the shame of having forgotten them.