Green misunderstood over Zionism

I refer to the letter of "B.M.H." in response to my own on the question of Zionism.'

I regret that B.M.H. misunderstood my comments.

The heading "Reply to Shahak" was appended by the Editor. My letter was prompted not by that article (interestingly, in Israel, a State whose people are under constant threat of imminent annihilation, as they are so thoughtfully reminded by the savage attacks of the P.L.O. etc, a gentleman like Shahak may openly advocate his own particular brand of destruction—what more open society can the Left seek?) but by the fact that today the well-dressed member of the Left so unthinkingly wears Pro-Palestinian sympathies.

That Zionism is inherently racist and nationalistic and therefore (apparently) to be decried, is a strange view in the circumstances As I noted in my letter, the assertion of Maori culture and language, the Nationalism of Black-Africa, etc., is vigorously supported by the Left. All I seek is consistency. If B.M.H. seeks Internationalism, I suggest he makes this clear, especially to the Palestinians.

I would add, why should it be that in that vast land mass of Muslim nations, that small area of land of the Jewish state must be secular (or Muslim) before there is to be peace in the Middle-East.

It is unfortunate that the Editor chose to head B.M.H.'s letter "Green's Whitewash". The only whitewash necessary is that for the blood-shed caused by the Arab terrorists, enthusiastically supported by their brothers.