Cp1m2
There's also a question of how Zionism conceives
Arabs, and it has become current for Arabs to
call Zionism a racial, a racist ideology.
Now, what, Patrick Seale, is the basis of that charge?
Well, I know it's a charge which created outrage when it
was first raised.
I think at the UN, they tried to dub Zionism as a racist
thing.
But you see, unfortunately, I think there is something in it.
I mean, much as one hates to say so, but if you just look at some of the
statements, say, of a man like Begin, I mean, he's always
ranting about Jewish blood and how precious it is,
with the implication, of course,
that Arab blood is much less precious.
And he says things like, Palestinians are animals walking on two paws.
Or you remember his chief of staff at the time, Rafael Eitan, talked about
Palestinians being cockroaches in a bottle.
Now, he talks about blood libel against the
Jews, or of course, his famous
phrase at the time of the Sabra and Shatila massacre.
He said, if Goyim kill Goyim, what concern is it of ours?
Now, that, it seems to me, is an absolutely racial remark.
Now, of course, this is not the only basis of that evidence.
There's a great deal more, and particularly, of course,
the treatment of
Jews from Arab countries in Israel, and they would be the first, I think,
to say
that they had been treated in a racialist way.
I've just been reading a very interesting book-
I thoroughly disagree with that. I must thoroughly disagree with that.
Right.
Now, of course, you mention I can give you a list of two
dozen
other loudmouth generals in Israel who have said outrageous things, but this you
can say about every country. I mean, in this country, there are no loudmouth
politicians and loudmouth generals.
Surely I would not make generalizations about England on the basis of what a
couple
of politicians there have said about the
West Indian immigrants and so forth.
Is Begin just a random politician, or does he represent a trend?
Begin, well, Begin does not represent a trend.
Begin, I think, is
a very sad consequence of
40 or 50 years of Arab-Israeli wars. About Mr.
Begin and about Mr. Rafael that you had mentioned,
I think I would say, by
way of generalization, that the Arab extremists,
who are our worst enemies, by the way,
they have at least already achieved one great victory
over us
in that they have succeeded to infect us,
or some of us, with their brutality and their extremism.
This, I think, is a consequence of 50 and 60 years of war.
I think what Patrick is saying, in another way,
I'd like to reformulate and say
that had there been in the United States, for
example,
immigration laws which said that only white Anglo-Saxon Protestants
can emigrate and get a citizenship, then you as a Jew
and I as a Palestinian would object.
Now, the same law, an inverse formulation of the same law,
which says
that only a Jew can emigrate to Israel,
whereas a Palestinian who is born there and
can—that cannot-
But please, don't forget the historic context.
No, no, I'm sure. I'm not saying-
This law was passed barely five or six years after the gates of
Auschwitz had closed.
No, I understand that.
When everybody had seen that the Jews were the only people who
were thrown in the
gas chambers because they were the only people in Europe who had
absolutely no control, not even the slightest measure of control
over their
fate.
But doesn't it-
The Jews convinced themselves, rightly or wrongly, that this had happened because
they did not have a territory, because they did not have any power.
No, I accept all that. I accept all that.
This law was passed.
No, I'm not-
Let's put this question more precisely.
How exactly do you justify, not in forty-seven or forty-eight when
the Auschwitz case seems to be unanswerable, but how do you justify in
nineteen eighty-seven a law of return which entitles a
Jew from London or from Manchester to return to
enjoy rights and citizenship protection in
Israel which are denied to Arabs born in that country,
born on that territory?
End of transcript · 730 words · machine translated