Word from Dr Shahak
Sir: I find it most remarkable that Lady Gaitskell should quote from an unnamed, undated and uncharacterised document Mere is a document', she says) about me (20 March). First I challenge her to reproduce the document and to say who signed it, who issued it, who distributes it, etc.
Secondly as to her allegations: (1) I have never presented any testimony before either 'The International Federation for the Rights of Man or 'The International League for the Rights of Man'. I challenge Lady Gaitskell and her 'sources' to produce testimony that I did so.
(2) The Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights of which I am chairman has left 'The International League for the Rights of Man', when we have learnt that the Princess Ashraff, the sister of His Majesty the Shah, is the chairman of the Iranian League for Human Rights, fully accredited to the International League. We have subsequently noticed that the International League and its backers have used the term 'Communist' in the same sense that Adolf Hitler used it: as a nickname for those who oppose racism, in this case, Jewish anti-Arab racism.
(3) I have been a witness before the special committee of the United Nations set up to look into the treatment of Arabs
in Israel-occupied territories. I had not 'my own witnesses' as the nonsense that Lady Gaitskell quoted puts it. Indeed, such an implication is totally at variance with a normal procedure of any committee of inquiry. I have been highly commended and thanked by the chairman, Mr Amarsinghee of Sri Lanka, and my testimony was not refuted before this committee. I again challenge Lady Gaitskell to apply to the primary sources and not to quote the modern Zionistic versions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
(4) As to the mission of the Internal Federation of Roman Catholic Jurists:, I have never heard about that body, much less submitted them any evidence, or had 'my own witnesses'. I have in a case in Haifa Court, judged in 1973, reported that two prisoners, Rami Livneh and Shawki Khatib, made grave accusation that they weretortured. Shawki Khatib's case, which in my opinion is as well proven as any case of torture may be, was taken again by the Observer (11 January 1976). Has Lady Gaitskill even taken the trouble to check the names of the victims whom 1 tried to help? Is she prepared even now to check the case of Shawki Khatib?
(5) I have not been present at all at any conference in Lausanne in 1974. There was no 'action' on my or the Israeli League's part; we were and are completely ignorant that any such conference even took place. I again challenge Lady Gaitskell to bring any proof or testimony that I 'brought any action' at Lausanne in 1974. Many more questions still remain for Lady Gaitskell. I should write a word about the letter of Moshe Davis from the office of the Chief Rabbi, about carrying out medical experiments on Gentiles, according to the Jewish Orthodox Law. Unfortunately Jewish Law is written in Hebrew and not in English and English books like the one by Dr Jakobovits are not considered authoritative. The authoritative code of the Jewish Law, the Shulhan Aruch, however states: 'It is permissible to try a remedy on a Gentile if it serves a purpose'. (Shulhan Aruch, part Yoreh De'ah, paragraph 158, quoted from the authoritative new edition El-ha-Mekoroth, 1965).
I will be very grateful if the office of the Chief Rabbi will abrogate or condemn this explicit ruling (which is only one of manY similar ones) and I will be only too glad if the paragraph that Mr Davis quotes will be substituted as a binding law, instead of the old one.
Israel Shahak 2 Bartenura Street, Jerusalem, Israel
Patrick Marnham's article Is Israel racist? has given rise to a deeply-felt correspondence. We wish to stress that the views contained in the letters published are those of the writers and should not be read as an expression of editorial opinion—especially when, as in Dr Uri Davis's letter of 3 April, they include animadversions on other correspondents.—Editor, Spectator.
Previous page
