Salient. Official Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 41 No. 21. August 28 1978
Another non-sequitur
Another non-sequitur
Canon had claimed that in the six months after the end of the British mandate the Zionists had driven out the Palestinians. Hirshfeld replied that "The day the British mandate to Palestine ended, the massed forces of the Egyptian, Iraqi and Jordanian armies moved into Palestine". From the day of its creation the state of Israel has been lighting for its survival. Again a non-sequitur, for the state of Israel has no right too exist, then it certainly has no right to fight for its survival. Contrary to expectations no justfications for Israel's existence were produced.
Then it was back to tit-for-tat. Carson had made a mistake over some of his dates, and this fundemental contradiction, which negated Carson's entire argument, was exploited to the full. "The French have supported the Arabs in weaponry in much the same way as the Americans have supported Israel".
"Do the Palestinians have a right to a homeland?" At last, I sigh, finally after all this hedging the truth is going to come out. "The Palestinians are a people, and as such have their rights." "Israel is not ready to male peace yet but Begin is kindling it." Unfortunately he did not make it clear whether this homeland the Palestinians were entitled to was the same one the Jews were entitled to.
Going straight to the heart of the issue, Hirshfeld started to discuss the PLO. "The PLO recently executed two people who were guilty of the crime of suggesting discussions with the Israeli Government." "The PLO, in its charter is commited to the distruction of Israel through armed struggle."
I am sure that supporters of Israel will feel that I have not done Hirshfeld's arguments justice. It may well be so. However I find it very difficult to produce a balanced report of a debate in which one of the speakers delved persistently into irrelevencies, avoided the issues and very rarely even spoke to the topic he was meant to be discussing. While Carson put quite clearly the case for the Palestinians, Hirshfeld failed to justify the position of his "side". Is this because there is no justification for it?
Peter Beach