Salient. Official Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 41 No. 21. August 28 1978
Zionism in search of an Argument
Zionism in search of an Argument
There is an idea floating around this campus that students aren't interested in issues which do not directly affect them. The argument doesn't hold up well if one looks at the attendances at forums and debates on issues of national and international importance. The Middle East debate held late last term was such a case in point, with more people filling the hall than many an SRC.
The debate was jointly organised by the Progressive Students' Allaince and the Jewish Students' Society. The topic, "Do the Palestinians have a right to a homeland?" was argued for by Don Canon, and against by Michael Hirschfeld. The JSS had asked Israeli ambassador Yaakov Morris, but in his usual fashion he declined the invitation to meet Carson in open debate.
Zionism and Judaism
Carson was first to the micophone. He said that it was his intention to present the historical case for the Palestinian people, but before doing so he defined some terms. "A Palestinian", he said "is a future concept. It refers to someone who will live in a free Palestinian slate". He went on to define a Zionist. "A Zionist should not be confused with a Jew. A Jew is a follower of a religious faith. A Zionist however is a Jew who believes that Israel is the Promised Land. To fulfill his comitment to his faith, a Zionist must actually live in Israel."
To further draw the distinction between Zionism and Judaism, Carson claimed that Zionists actually welcomed waves of anti-Semitism when they occured, as they enabled fresh fuel to be added to the fight for Israel. He quoted from a paper (the authenticity of which was disputed by Hirshfeld) which related how a prominent Zionist had viewed with favour the increased anti-Semitism leading up to the Second World War.
Carson then moved into the debate proper. He explained that the Palestinians claims to their homeland in considerable detail, but for sake of brevity I will include only what I think to be the main points. He spoke first of historical Palestine. "When the Zionists took over Palestine in 1917 they didn't walk into an empty desert there were people living there. Palestine was originally settled around 640AD, and by 1918 about half the population was settled on the land, no longer nomadic." He conceded that Palestine had not existed as a nation during this period, "There have been a constant sucession of foreign powers who have controlled the region, including the Turks, the British and currently Washington.
The "Children of Israel"
Carson then went on to examine "the five main arguments the Zionists have used to justify the existence of Israel". The first justification he looked at was the biblical promise. "But who are the children of Israel?" Carson claimed that in that context the Arabs were also the Children of Israel. But if it meant Jews, he went on, how might one determine who were the Jews that were the Children of Israel? "There is no single factor which determines Jews", he argued, "one cannot point to any characteristic which could be used to recognise all Jews." He went on to say that the Eastern Jews are not descended from Moses, but from Kazad who converted to Judaism in 740. In that sense he said it is meaningless to talk about the Jews of Eastern Europe having Israel as their historic homeland. "Ultra-orthodox Jews don't support the return to Israel. [ unclear: Judaism] is a religion, it has nothing to do with states, much less a state taken and held by force."
The Balfour Declaration
The second argument which Carson examined was the mandate from the British cabinet contained in the Balfour Declaration. "The Balfour Declaration said that the British Government viewed with favour the creation of a national homeland for the Jewish people". It also said "That nothing should be done to upset the existing population, 92% Arab at the time."
The mandate of the Balfour Declaration must be treated with some reserve, because at the same time as promising the land to the Jews, the British Government had promised it to various other Arab groups as they undertook the carve up of the Otterman Empire after the War. "During this period the Arabs were concerned about the Jews taking over their homeland, however they did allow them in as refugees. Now we are told that even the Arabs let the Jews into Israel!"
The UN Resolution
'The third mandate often quoted is the UN resolution". By this time the number of Jews emigrating to Israel had risen to such proportions as to threaten the Arabs, so the matter was debated in the General Assembly. In the debate the Arabs claimed that they had the right to all the land of Palestine, while the Zionists said they would accept only part of the land. "So the Zionists accepted part of the land when in fact they had no right to any of it. The arguments of the Zionists must in any case be seen as merely tactical moves, because as soon as the British [ unclear: had] withdrawn the Jews took over about 77% of the land. The first exodus of over 400,000 Palestinians took place."
Zionist Terrorism
This brought Carson to the fourth mandate the Zionists use, that the Palestinians left. "It is not suprising that they left in view of the amount of terrorist activity directed against them." He detailed, as an example of this terrorist activity the massacre at Dier Yasin, for which the Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin was responsible. "The Zionist leaders of the time believed that immediate preventive war against the Arabs was necessary".
One argument often put up for the Arabs leaving was that there were repeated requests from the Arab leaders for their people to leave Israel broadcast over the radio. Carson stated that the British army, which had monitored all broadcasts in Palestine at the time, had no evidence to back the Zionist claim. "There is no primary evidence that the Arabs left of their own free will. There is no reason why they should."
Military Might
The last mandate that Carson mentioned was of a rather different character. "The justification of brute force and military might". If this is to be an acceptable criterion for justifying the creation of a national state, then Israel's existence is certainly justified. "Israel has been the greatest recipient of US military aid except for South Vietnam and South Korea. It currently recieves 46% of all American overseas aid."
Canon finished his opening address with a few remarks about the nature of the Israeli state. He quoted Yaakov Morris' "Israel has never been the homeland of the Palestinians, it has always been the homeland of the Jews", and Golda Miers' "There is no such thing as Palestine". We were told of the 3000 political prisoners in Israel. Opposition towards Israel's expansionist policies on the West Bank: "only one member of the United Nations voted in favour of the settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan, even the United States wouldn't support them on that one."
Regarding the morality of the Israeli leaden he said, "Israel is now a major exporter of arms; most of these exports go to South Africa, a country which has made enormous investments in Israel. The Israeli government has encouraged these investments to such an extent that they now involve some $80m. excluding arms." Carson finished by saying "My statements may be partisan echoes of the PLO, but I've been making them for some time now and no-one has pointed out any errors yet."
The other side begins
I expect that I will be accused of biased reporting of this debate as Mr Canon's arguments have been presented in greater detail that Mr Hirshfeld's will be. Not that the latter spoke for any lesser an amount of time, but rather that much of what he said had little bearing on the topic for discussion. It is certainly proper to attack the claims of other speakers, that is what debating is all about. Hirshfeld went further than that however.
He spent much time pointing out errors and inaccuracies in various articles which have appeared in Salient from time to time, although none of the articles he referred to had been written by Carson. He spent a long time rubbishing Carson for mistakes he was supposed to have made in previous debates. This went on for so long that it appeared he was indulging in a character assassination campaign, directed not only at Carson, but at anyone who had had the temerity to question in public the Zionist position.
The Zionist position is also harder to report on, as unlike Canon, Hirshfeld did not methodically run through his arguments, but jumped around the place, speaking in terms of isolated incidents rather than considering the general picture. By sifting the fragments into some sort of order, it seems Hirshfeld's argument went something like this.
Concerning the trade relationships between South Africa and Israel he said, "New Zealand also has contact with South Africa, we do not for that reason deny New Zealand the right to statehood." With regard to Canon's comments on the views of the ultra-orthodox Jews he said, "ultra-orthodox Jews comprise less than 1% of the Israeli population."
Missing the Point
Here and right throughout the debate, Hirshfeld seemed to completely miss the point of Carson's statements. Obviously the South Africa connection does not of its own accord deny Israel the right to exist. The comment was to illustrate what Carson feels are some of the undesirable attitudes of the Israeli government.
The context in which Canon made his observations of the attitude of orthodox Jews was one of examining the biblical justification for Israel's existence. If scholars of Judaism reject the idea of a mandate for Israel from biblical times, then it may not be a valid argument. I find it hard to believe that Hirshfeld was unable to grasp these points. In the light of his continual missing of the point, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was deliberately avoiding the issue.
He quoted Elridge Cleaver as saying that the Arabs were as racist as the Jews (although what this was meant to show, I don't know). "There are presently ½ million Arab Israeli citizens" ("and how many Palestinian refugees?" someone asked). Carson's claim that Zionist agents were dispatched to burn a synagogue to increase the appearance of anti-Semitism, is a total He" (as no-one produced any evidence for either claim, you can take your pick as to who to believe).
He thought it relevent however to tell us that "Iraq recently executed 12 Jews in front of TV cameras". From this single action we were asked to form two conclusions. Firstly that because Jews were executed, the PLO sympathiser, would stop at nothing to murder innocent Jews (no-one was able to tell us what the dead dozen had been charged with). Secondly that the other Arab states were not democratic, secular or free (a point repeatedly made). It is a moot point just how much one can rely on single incidents to characterise the actions of a group: atrocities have been committed on both sides.
Returning at last to answer the points Canon had made, Hirshfeld said that prior to 1917 70% of the land was owned by the Turks and the British. As Canon had already conceded that Palestine had been dominated by foreign powers from time immemorial, it is hard to see what point Hirshfeld was trying to make from this.
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