Carson on Zionism

After reading the Zionist outbursts in the last two issues of Salient, with the case for Israel being presented through abuse and irrelevancies, I feel that I must reply at some length on the motivations for such behaviour and on the realities of the Middle East situation.

The abuse and smear tactic is not the result of an outraged indignation over the denial of a vote, but rather a technique used to cover up the central point of Israel being a colonialist, racist and militaristic state.

So, Mark Shenken, knowing full well the nature of this state, diverts attention by an absolutely fraudulent rewriting of the history of NZUSA policy on the Middle East. Let me set the record straight on the NZUSA initiated exclusion of the National Union of Israeli Students, (not Israeli Students Association as Shenken calls it) from the Asian Students Association in 1975 and the affirmation of the membership of the General Union of Palestinian Students.

Despite Shenken's assertions, NZUSA policy at this time advocated self determination for the Palestinians. As a corollary, it did not recognise the "State of Israel". This policy was actioned by a decision of the National Executive of NZUSA, specifically directing me to oppose Israeli membership of the ASA at its conference in Thailand. This is not just my word versus Shenken's; the policy books still exist for anyone to see.

Unfortunately, not all such matters can so easily be verified and Shenken is reminded that he does not have complete licence to use the student press in the hope that some diversionary dirt will stick. Any further libellous inventions could well see the truth established in a court of law.

Next my "rampage" at Massey using "tactics" of moving motions in support of the Palestinian people at the AGM. Unlike Shenken, I see the utilisation of the democratic process as an obligation - not a subterfuge. Also, Shenken's chronicle of the meeting omits mention of a decision to take policy affirming Israel's right to exist, off the books.

As for quoting Sami Hadawi, I make no apology for doing so. So long as the truth is still told, partisan support for the Palestinian nation in no way invalidates what one has to say. The Zionists, in campus letter columns, make a great play of "objectivity" and claim universal majority support from students when only contradictory results have been obtained from a sectional test of opinion.

It is about time the campus Zionists admitted the partisan nature of their stand and that feigning objectivity is nothing but a strategem.

I do not intend to withdraw my quotation of Menachem Begin, where he justifies the massacre of Deir Yassin. Though the precise words I used do not appear in the English version of Begin's book, "The Revolt" (not "Bitter Harvest" as Shenken thinks) the translation from the original Hebrew was one published in an American biweekly, "Jewish Newsletter" (Oct 3 1960). Besides, there are enough similar statements in the complete English version book to make no difference to a belief that Begin saw Deir Yasin as very important in terrorising Palestinians off their land and out of their country.

Now to Deir Yasin itself, not the "mainstay of anti Israeli propaganda" either, just one of the more infamous massacres in a long Zionist history, the most recent of which was the killing of 2,000 civilians in the recent invasion of the Lebanon.

The Zionist lobby explains Deir Yasin on the basis that the inhabitants were warned to leave and that the Irgun attackers were fired on, with the ultimate loss of four of them. This argument is a preposterous arrogance that presumes that mere Arabs have no real attachment to their homes and certainly no right to defend them from a gang of thugs.

With such flimsy arguments to sustain them it is no wonder that the Zionist camp is so reluctant to engage in uninterrupted and open debate. Atachi, for instance, toured New Zealand representing the pro-Israel faction of the 33,000 Druze in the Israeli state, in the Begin coalition. He said that he came here to "clarify misconceptions". When I challenged him on this, he said that he had not come to debate; sorry La, he really did say it.

In similar vein the ambassador to New Zealand waxes eloquent on how student politicians are a "small vociferous minority group misrepresenting the majority of students". Yet this same ambassador when he visited Massey on the anniversary of Deir Yasin, didn't feel it appropriate to let me interview him for Chaff. He doesn't even have the courtesy to reply to a Massey Students Association invitation to debate the Middle East, but accepts the university's invitation to have a microphone to himself. He also is now excluding the media from talks he gives to Lions clubs. Yet it is no accident his press, radio and service group statements rival those of the South African consul, Lindhorst, in frequency. After all they are selling the same product.

Zionist groups overseas, especially in the United States, have sought to stifle, not debate, views supporting the Palestinian people, by blocking publications or ensuring that speakers' invitations were retracted. Witness the Jewish Defense League's attempt to stop Vanessa Redgrave from receiving the osear nomination on the basis of Redgrave's opposition to Zionism.

Israel is sold in one of the most sophisticated public relations exercises ever. It is presented under all sorts of guises. To capitalists it represents "free enterprise", to socialists "progressive democracy"; the ambassador even condemns the PLO for being right wing.

To the Pentagon Israel is "tough and resiliant", but to the UN it claims to be the great seeker of peace. Originally, Zionism was sold to the Palestinians as desiring "independence from colonialist Europe", yet Europe was told that Zionism was for civilising the "barbarians" of Asia.

Heymann's criticism of calling "Jews" "Zionists", at Atachi's forum (sic) is another attempt to have things both ways. Call Atachi's followers Jews and criticise them and one is automatically labelled anti-semitic.

At the crux of the issue is political Zionism. A Zionist is not a Jew, the word defines the supporter of the concept of a separate nation state for the Jews. A Jew is the adherent of a religious faith who collectively belong to many different races and countries. To claim a Jewish ethnic link to the Middle East is thus tenuous, except for a very small number of Jews whose continuous settlements in Palestine date back to Biblical times. Even if a link was proved, then descendants of the Crusaders, most New Zealanders, could lay claim to the region with equal validity.

The Jews are not a people in any collective sense different from Christians or Moslems, certainly not to the extent of being a nation. All states, except Israel, have been formed on the basis of geographical divisions; none by religious migration.

Non-Jews live in Israel under sufferance, for to let them live there as of right would negate the very basis of Israel's existence. As Ben Gurion, first Israeli Prime Minister put it, "Israel is the country of the Jews and only of the Jews".

It follows from this central racist viewpoint that criticism of Israel is diverted to the nature of the neighbouring Arab states. These countries are not all the same and it is a racist comment that presumes a Palestinian state with a predominant Arab population would be a reactionary state simply because of an Arab majority.

In conclusion, let me point out that the democracy of Israel is partly a myth and partly the product of being the major recipient of United States economic and military aid. It's easier to float a democracy for the wealthy, especially while throwing out those who won't have a country, let alone exercise any sort of vote in one.

Don Carson.