'Half-Truths' About Israel

To the Editors of the Crimson:

In his letter to the editors (12/10/83), Robert A. Watts praises Errol T. Louis for his editorials of December 2 and 3 which condemn Israel for its relations with South Africa. He calls the articles "remarkable." I, too, would call Louis' articles "remarkable." They stand out as examples of how half-truth, distortion and general misinformation can be used to convince people that Israeli policies (in this case regarding South Africa) are immoral and that Israel should not be supported.

In a nutshell, Louis' first article puts together a list of alleged economic and military connections between Israel for its ties with the racist state. In his second article he attempts to justify singling out Israel over other countries for having these relations. This justification fails miserably as his evidence disappears in a cloud of unproven assertions.

In the economic sphere, International Monetary Fund (IMF) statistics from 1979 show that South African trade with Israel is miniscule when compared to South African trade with other parts of the world. Israel ranks seventeenth in receiving South African exports (.5 percent of exports) and twenty-third in supplying its imports (.4 percent of imports). The major western industrial nations (the U.S., U.K., Japan and West Germany) are at the top of the list. Forty-six of fifty-two members of the Organization of African unity have commercial relations with South Africa. So much for Louis' U.S.-Israel-South Africa "axis' of economic gain."

In addition, it is important to realize that many countries cover up their economic support for South Africa's morally debased regime and, therefore, are not properly listed in the IMF statistics. Until 1973, it was public knowledge that Saudi Arabia supplied 25 percent of South Africa's oil. Since 1973, however, South Africa's oil suppliers have been classified. Despite this, the Shipping Research Bureau in Amsterdam, an anti-apartheid research foundation, found out that during 1979 and early 1980 South Africa received oil shipments from Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Iraq, Qutar and the United Arab Emirates.

This is highly significant because it means that the Arab oil exporting nations could seriously injure the South African economy if they were to cut off their supplies. An Israeli trade cutoff simply could not have that effect. Moreover, these same countries can afford to lose one trading partner; Israel, with its huge trade deficit and its astronomic inflation (partly due to an Arab-sponsored economic boycott) cannot.

The same argument holds with regard to military connections that Israel has with South Africa. I do not deny that Israel has such connections. Neither do I condone them. No one should be trading with or investing in South Africa. However, to single Israel out for its relationship with South Africa, as Louis does, is a type of scapegoating that is nothing short of hypocritical. Louis syas. "The U.N. attacks on Israeli ties to South Africa will undoubtably worsen so long as Israel continues to sell weapons to such countries as South Africa...." I don't doubt this. I also don't doubt the U.N.'s hypocrisy on this issue. From 1963 to 1975 more than $1 billion worth of arms were sold to South Africa. France was the largest supplier, followed by the U.K., the U.S. and West Germany. Israel's total sales during that period included six patrol boats and the surface-to-surface missiles to arm the boats. The Kingdom of Jordan, on the other hand, sold South Africa 41 Centurion battle tanks and a total of 717 missiles, as well as jeeps, launchers and radar equipment. The Soviet Bloc nations also have sold and sell arms to South Africa, though not openly, CBS has filmed the unloading of such arms.

Since 1977, the U.N. has organized an arms embargo against South Africa. There are no longer even remotely reliable statistics on the South African arms trade. Once again, I do not doubt that Israel has had some involvement, but the assertion that Israel serves as the U.S. proxy in selling arms to South Africa is unsubstantiated.

Can we trust Louis' evidence to the contrary? I think not. He indicates that Israel is involved with South Africa's Bureau of State Security, a "Gestapo-like" organization. However, his only evidence is that, "In 1973, the head of South Africa's Bureau of State Security visited Israel." There is no mention of the nature of the visit: Louis also weaves a three-paragraph spy novel about Israeli involvement in a nuclear test explosion off the coast of South Africa. Similarly, his tone piece of evidence is that an Israeli nuclear scientist visited Israel on the day following the explosion. Once again, no specifics about the nature of the visit. Such resort to innuendo and bold-faced assertions not only belies the weakness of his argument but is also downright sleazy. By Louis' logic, if a man visits a woman after she has given birth, then the man must be the father of the child.

If Louis' evidence is questionable, then his reasoning and conclusions are even more so. There is strong evidence to indicate that Israel's relationship with the apartheid state only became noticeable after much of Black Africa broke ties with Israel in 1973. Arab oil was decisive in turning Black Africa against Israel at that time. In his opinion piece of December 9, Jeffrey Mendelsohn effectively proves this point. Until 1973, Israel had good relations with Black Africa and gave extensive aid to these developing nations. Since then, Black Africa has publicly joined the Arab camp against Israel, though informal relations and cooperation continue. Louis claims that Black African countries expressed opposition to Israeli policies "long before oil politics became a factor." Yet, his only example is two quotes from one man, Amilcar Cabral, the founder of the revolutionary movement in Guinnea-Bisseau. He concludes about African opposition to Israel that, "a good deal of it is authentic disgust at Israeli policies toward Palestinians...and at the South African connection." I don't see how one man can be said to speak for the people of an entire continent.

I think former Ambassador Andrew Young understood the situation clearly when he argued in 1979: "It is unfair to link Israel to South Africa...if there is a link, you must compare Britain, Germany, Japan and the United States. All of them have links with South Africa. Israel becomes a too easy scapegoat for other problems we have." Jordan B. Millstein '85