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.

Movick Money or Munchies?

Just a Few Thoughts in Passing (The Cafe)
Mummy why are all the students crying?
Cos, dear, Poor James Movick was 'exported',
Daddy, why are all the students starving?
Well, dear, cafe prices are so high they can't
afford it,

So who is Movick? (now, I mean.)
With all the bullshit cut down to size,
I would have thought money could have been wiser spent,
On ideas like: close to home and subsidies.
Why should people like us
Students, be thin?
To pay for for rubbish in Movick's bin?

The End

Hebenton on Imperialism

How are you my man? I am writing this letter as I am bored, frustrated, and in need of fun. After learning how unbiased your paper is, I decided to read it, for once, or even twice. Anticipating a wealth of knowledge my eyes fell upon an article entitled: 'Zaire: Corruption and Rebellion'. Fine, I thought, and I read it. Most of it was very informative (although I suspect entirely biased).

But Mr Treen appears to be confused. Because the whites operate the mines, they are the imperialists. The mines are the backbone of the economy, in fact one third of Zaire's income comes from the mines. Unfortunately the white occupants of Kolwezi are the only people in Zaire with the necessary knowledge to operate the mines. Without the French and Belgians the mines do not work. Mr Treen should be well pleased, few of those evacuated have any intention of returning, and the mines look at the moment as if they will cease operations, tragic for Zaire, under any regime, and the world as a whole for raw materials. But no more imperialism, and that's what counts.

The French and Belgian paratroops entered the Shaba province to extract the trapped whites, as Mobutu was obviously incapable. And here Mr Treen's facts seem to become confused. Two hundred whites were killed, not 70, along with many Africans. Seventy whites were taken hostage when the rebel troops withdrew, and the French remained to find and rescue them, hence Mr Treen's mopping up campaigns.

Shortly after the rebels disappeared over the border, the French too began to make arrangements to withdraw, as they have no intention of fighting Mobutu's war. Mr Treen's page 19 conclusions my well be correct, but the article as a whole was so fraught with inaccuracies that one can only conclude the conclusions are false.

Mr Wilson, in the light of recent controversy over your paper's biased nature, I feel that it is in your interest to check and remove All biased articles, whether left, right or whatever. This of course would mean your paper will have very little in it. More jokes, my man, a photo of yourself perhaps (that was no vicious slant against you, of course, just a moment of light revelry!).

Biased articles, I know, cannot be avoided, but I feel a more concentrated effort to keep Salient as an informative paper, not a vehicle for ultra-leftist or right views is needed.

Budget Attacks

Thursday's Budget was anti-student and anti-women. The effect of the change in income tax levels was to hit part-time and part-year workers i.e. students and married women. To see how students have been affected by the Budget, let us take an average student receiving a standard tertiary bursary and earning $1,000 in holiday and part-time employment. The annual increase in the bursary (approximately $100) is about the same as the increase in taxation on the $1,000 income. So much for the generous 'increase' for tertiary students. Where is National's promised reforme I bursary?

Why is it that Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, in his infinite wisdom, has kindly endowed us with an extra $2.50 per week while at the same time increasing tax on those who earn less than $3,000 per annum, (namely us diddled students)?

Hen's Eggs, Angsoc and the Irgun

There are three points that I should like to make with this letter. First: Worried Man, worry no longer, hen's eggs are not fertilised, so your conscience may be eased.

Second: To continue the boring G. Herrington correspondence, where was he last Tuesday night? The Christian clubs, notably AngSoc, advertised a discussion on Christian Life. Further, how much effort, Mr Herrington have you put into discovering what Christian clubs are doing?

Third: In reply to the comments appended to my letter of Monday last. Irgun and the Stern Gang were extremist groups working for individual interpretations of Zionism. I did not claim that all Zionist groups were perfect, just that official Israeli policy is anti-Palestinian terrorist, rather than anti-Arab.

Menachem Begin "and his mates" had nothing to do with Dier Yassin, so I fail to see your point. I do not condone the action carried out by Irgun, but revenge was strong among individual members.

A further thing you would do well to bear in mind is the difference between official and extremist policy and action.

This Space Cost $2

[gap — ]

Law Library Grouch

As a student whose course requires that I spend a lot of time in the library researching work and using reference material, I want to complain about the bloody awful system of opening hours the place has.. Having the prepare every night for classes the next day, the only real opportunity I get to study etc., is to do this during the weekend and holidays ... so what happens. The library, which is supposedly there for the benefit of students closes at six on a Friday night, opens for the morning on Saturdays, and the afternoon on Sundays which gives a student fuck all time to do any work there. If my memory serves me correctly the reduced hours were to save money (around $3,000-5,000) so that some conference or other could be attended. If this conference has been, then why the lousy hours still...; or is it merely an excuse for what is really a convenience matter i.e.. why have students cluttering up the varsity where conferences are being held....

The problem strikes hardest at those students who rely on non-issuable material for their course, what use is an expensive set of statutes that you cannot refer to at night, over the weekend, or holidays. Remember many of us have to work during the day so that we can afford to come here at all .... or is that the idea? To restrict varsity to the children of the rich?

It is time that students stood up for the right to decent learning facilities, so how about some Action about the library?? The [unclear: damn] place is for our use, or so the glossy booklet the varsity bureaucrats puts out tells us so let's use it ... when We want to, not when they think we should.

The Next Word on Christianity

In the May 22 and 29 issues there were a few letters bitching about a letter I wrote so because I don't like letting Christians or their sympathisers have the last word I thought I'd better reply, at least to some of them.

She also says "As for 'scrapping' the Christian clubs and the Chaplaincy - Mr Herrington has no more right to do that than one would have to scrap a Bigot's club were he to form one". I don't have delusions of grandeur. I suggested the "University" could set an example by scrapping them. I have to admit I'm not sure how they are related to the University so I may be suggesting something which is impossible.

K. Francisco: K. F.'s letter was in three main parts. In the first he says I was "indignant" last year "for the cause of the Croatians". Actually it was the Croats who did over the Serbs but compared with the other inaccuracies in his letter this is a minor point.

In the third part of his letter he says "It is refreshing to see someone taking life so seriously as Mr Herrington". If the Christians were an important minority it would be different, but with their present influence there doesn't seem to be any alternative to taking them seriously.

He also asks if I have thought of lending a hand to Christians such as Mother Teresa. Perhaps it's different with the Protestants but in the case of the Catholics their charity has to be seen in perspective. We hear a lot about individuals like Mother Teresa but any poverty the Catholic clergy alleviate is insignificant compared to the hardship they cause in countries or areas where they are influential. The main ways they undermine living standards is by supporting restrictions on birth control, helping right-wing parties and by preaching a naive anti-materialism eg Jesuit "Industrial Leadership" courses at [unclear: loyola] Hall, Liverpool).

Peter Cotorceanu: P.C. says I have "misconceived" the Christian position on the admissibility of using common sense to judge their religion and then goes on to state that we can be "led to Christ" only partly by reason but some faith is still required. This is simply an incomplete version of the same old assertion that Christian beliefs shouldn't be judged by the standards of common sense. He still hasn't explained why they are entitled to this privilege.

He also says "By no means is the Christian message an irrational faith for the intellectually weak". It seems to me it is an "irrational faith" but obviously Christians aren't "intellectually weak" in general. Neglecting their common beliefs they seem to be roughly a cross section of the population but they can follow an "irrational faith" because they don't apply their usual standards of proof to their religion.

If this situation could be attained there would at least be the basis for de-emphasising the role of religion in society.

Zurdo: Z. seems to be under the impression I was comparing myself with the authors of the Bible and, for some reason, with Isaiah in particular. I claimed to be above being judged by reason (and used answers in exams as an example) to illustrate how ridiculous it is for anyone, including Christians, to make claims of this kind. Apparantly the "subtlety" of this device caused Z. to miss the point.

An Answer to WONAAC

In a letter in last week's Salient members of the VUWSA delegation to NZUSA May Council and myself as VUWSA Woman Vice President were attacked for voting against support for WONAAC.

The letter overlooks one important fact. A motion supporting WONAAC was defeated at a VUWSA SGM in 1976. On this basis alone it would have been wrong for us to vote for support for WONAAC.

Furthermore, many of the people at Victoria fighting for a women's Right to Abortion disagree with WONAAC's tactics. For WONAAC excludes men from the Abortion struggle; by refusing to let men attend their weekly meetings, and by aiming their leaflets solely at women. This attitude to men encourages people to think that men are the enemy of the pro-choice abortion movement. This is nonsense. Many men are vigorously opposed to the abortion laws and they have the right to be active. Moreover if the pro-choice groups exclude men they are working at half strength. Only by mobilising the greatest possible number of New Zealanders for woman's democratic right to abortion will the fight be won.

Posing men as the enemy of pro-choice groups plays directly into the hands of the Government.

In times of economic crisis the Government tries to create scape-goats who can be blamed for society's ills. Thus the Government singles out different sections of society to attack - women, Maoris, Trade Unionists, Polynesians etc. When these different groups stand up for their rights they are labelled as "stirrers" etc. to put the rest of society against them. If we are to win the campaign for woman's right to abortion it is essential that we do not give fuel to the right-wing cry that Pro-choice activists are male-haters and thus narrow down our support to a very small section of the community.

At Victoria there was a split in the Abortion Rights Group over whether or not men should be allowed to attend our meetings. It was decided to widely publicise a meeting that would decide the issue. Several women came to that meeting and said that they strongly believed that men should be encouraged to come to Pro-choice meetings and that the exclusion of men had kept them away from the pro-choice movement in the past.

These are the reasons that the Vic delegation voted the way it did.

Law Faculty Club Defended

I object strongly to your attack on the Law Faculty Committee in your so called editorial in Salient (June 6). The members of the committee have done a good job in the past bringing the pass/fail ratio issue into the open in general.

Law students can do without your shabby Muldoon-style mud slinging interference in their affairs. The committee positions were not exactly hotly contested and if the present members of the committee are prepared to sacrifice some time as they have done, there is no reason for unwarranted attacks upon them.

This sort of thing has discredited both you and Salient in the past. Students in general are tired of your lack of objectivity and your editorship. I demand your resignation as you have abused your position and wasted the publications levy which comes out of our Association fees every year. It is time you were gone, in order that Salient becomes worth reading and more representative of student opinion. If you don't change your ways or resign then I cordially suggest you undergo the type of treatment which Nathan K. Guru advocates for Comrade Cassidy.

SPUC Film Brutal

I should like to sincerely urge the sensitive and impressionable in our midst not to subject themselves to the horrors depicted in the SPUC-sponsorcd film, "I'd Love Her Back Though" which is currently being shown throughout New Zealand.

The proponents of the film would no doubt argue that the assault on my sensibilities is of little or no account in comparison with the assault on the aborted foetus. Some would perhaps admit that the film is designed to distress. The dubious morality of attempting to combat violence with violence need not be gone into here.

It needs to be clearly understood, however, that the material contained in "I'd Love Her Back Though" has been collected and presented so as to endorse the extreme viewpoint that under no or virtually no circumstances is abortion to be tolerated. To the extent that this film was not able to persuade me to this inhuman point of view, it failed in its brutal mission.