6 OPINION Page 4 Israel must Saturday, October 2, 1982. share the The Michigan Daily responsibility. By Sarkis Elm assian The massacre of hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in Beirut shocked the con- science of the world. In its wake, there are three important questions to be examined: 1) Who was responsible for this pogrom? The attempt by Prime Minister Begin and Defense Minister Sharon to shrug off responsibility for the massacres is clumsy at best. The extreme right-wing Lebanese gangs that committed the atrocity had a history of engaging in massacres, and Israeli newspapers report that Sharon actually helped them enter the camps with full knowledge of what would likely follow. Israeli sources have admitted that many Israeli officials, two cabinet ministers among them, knew about the massacres 36 hours liefore they "intervened" to stop them. The Israeli government clearly shares a large por- tjop of the responsibility for the massacres. 2) Why were such massacres allowed to oc- cur by the Israeli government? The memory of the 1948 Deir-Yassin massacre, where 252 Ialestiian civilians were murdered in cold B lood by Begin's Irgun terrorist gang is not yet fbigotten. At that time, Begin claimed the ac- P7~ tion helped create panic among Palestinians, thus forcing them to flee from their homes vacating the land for Jewish settlements. In September 1982, Begin and Sharon deliberately approved the much larger scale massacre in Beirut precisely to spread panic among the Palestinians so that they would flee from Lebanon to distant places. In addition, Begin and Sharon were aiming to terrorize Palestinians everywhere into submission so that they would not oppose the annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. In this respect, what most people fail to notice is that the Beirut massacre was not an isolated event, but part of a pattern of terrorizing the Palestinians during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. For this purpose, thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed in southern Lebanon, especially in the refugee camps. Israef preven- ted the entry of media personnel into these camps for weeks until they had covered up the atrocities that occurred there. Furthermore, all males between the ages of 14 and 55 were taken into prison camps as "terrorist" suspects. More than 10,000 are held now in detention without any charges. President Reagan's crocodile tears over the victims in Beirut should deceive no one. The fact that American arms shipments to Israel never stopped (they actually increased . dramatically) during the months preceding the invasion, the fact that Sharon was in Washington during the week preceding the in- vasion, and the fact that Reagan endorsed the Israeli goals in Lebanon, all indicate the ad- ministration's foreknowledge and approval of the invasion. As such, Reagan is at least indirectly respon- sible for the tragedy which has resulted from the invasion. - Why did the administration support the in- vasion? It did so, simply, because it wants to weaken all the nationalist forces which are dedicated to democratic and egalitarian government in the Middle East, and to thus strengthen the rule of the authoritarian regimes in the Arab world. These regimes, in-, cidentally, provide a haven for the multinational corporations exploiting the resources of the area. 3) How could, such atrocities as the Beirut massacre be allowed to occur? What kind of mentality would condone such barbarism? Successive Israeli governments and the media have continuously labeled the Palestinian fighters as "terrorists." They have so inter- changeably used the words "Palestinian," "terrorist," and "PLO," that in the minds of most Israelis "terrorism" and "Palestinian" have come to be synonymous. All kinds of vile acts and intentions have been attributed to Palestinians, all with the ultimate political purpose of depriving them of the right of self- determination. Palestinians have been so dehumanized in the minds of most Israelis that they have come to accept the notion that Palestinians don't deserve a homeland. They accept the notion that it is legitimate to annex the West Bank and Gaza strip. Such vilification of Palestinians has led most Israelis to accept with equanimity the horrible spectacle of the Israeli army's behavior in Lebanon. It was exactly such racist ideas spread by the Nazi media which allowed the genocide of Jews and others to occur in Europe. Unfortunately, a similar genocidal mentality is dominant in the Israeli government. But, for- tunately, circumstances do not allow them to carry out their designs against the Palestinian people. Does the above statement mean that Israel has become a fascist state? I do not think so, at least not yet. That large segments of Israeli society have rabidly racist and arrogant views toward Arabs-that these Israelis would like to expand the borders of Israel and dominate the Arab countries neighboring them-is evident by the fact that a majority of Israelis still sup- ports Begin's policies. Yet it is encouraging to know that a substan- tial minority oppose Begin and call for a genuine peace in the Middle East based both on justice to the Palestinians and on security for Israel. The 400,000 demonstrators in Tel Aviv on Sept. 24 show that not all hope is lost for peace in the Middle East. It is the "Peace Now" movement, which helped organize last week's demonstration, which is truly working for peace. "Peace now," unlike the Labor or Likud parties, recognizes that it is only when Arabs and Jews rise above their prejudices that many common human values can be seen. They are helping to pave the long and arduous road for peace in the Mid- dle East. Elmassian is a doctoral student in the School of Education. Wasserman ' diedatudetgatT et yhi Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Vol. XCIII, No. 21 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, M1 48109 NEtLO WPSNIN&ToN- FoW'A I TA S 1o N N M IRAINSTUATION H1AS &OTT~1 OUT OF NAND I f C .11 Ediforiols rearesent a moiority opinion of the Dnilv's Fclitnrinl Rnnr[7 I ' 1 . Unbalanced P HE U.S. House of Representatives killed the balanced budget anendment last night, but not before giving the amendment supporters a chance to make as much commotion as p>ssible. The motives of the amendment sup- p rters were clear and shameless:- They resurrected their bit of economic irisanity during the middle of the cam- paign season to gain as much political mileage as they could. They were .hoping that somehow the public pressure for lower federal deficits worild force House members to support the amendment or face political problems in the upcoming election. Fortunately, 187 members of the House saw through the facade and voted against the measure, killing it until at least the next session. "Voters across America should count heads and take names," President Reagan rattled last night. "In November, we must elect representatives who will support the amendment, then we propose it again inthe spring." .But neither the president's ominous effusions nor the measure of public support the amendment has garnered can change the basic flaws in the amendment. Meagan's record itself offers a num- ber of splendid arguments against a Constitutionally-mandated balanced budget. Reagan's enormous military 12OPQieWIRh NO M'ONEy A\ND NO P1111V11 UI Tf1C VUIIY 5 CUITO(IUI DOU(U [amendment \ o, ARE HAVN& A TOUGf TI\E LATELY Y, 'I MA TALKw& Alour 6 expenditures have required substan- tial federal budget deficits-the largest, in fact, in the nation's history. Yet the president, who repeatedly promised during his campaign for of- fice to balance the budget and who is a vehement supporter of the amen- dment, insisted that it was "absolutely necessary" that the government incur the debts for the military buildup. Further, had the proposed amen- dment been in force a year ago, it is en- tirely possible that the current recession could have been even worse. Deficit spending-even on the military-can help ease the severity of a recession or speed recovery. Rigid restrictions on such spending could only serve to make economic downtur- ns worse. Even the portion of the amendment which contains provisions for deficit spending in emergencies is flawed: It requires that three-fifths of both houses of Congress approve the deficit spending, effectively making the federal budget hostage to the whims of two-fifths of either house. But the arguments against the amendment itself were not the issue yesterday, even though the amen- dment lost. The real issue, at least for the president and his allies, was the at- tempt to take as much advantage as possible of those too foolish to see their real, political intentions. BERKELEY, Calif. - In late September I began my 25th year of teaching at the University of California in Berkeley and, as at the beginning of every new academic year, I have sought to acquire a sense of the students' mood. What struck me this year is how quiet young people are. At first I thought this un- precedented absense of talk could be a sign of self-concern or apathy or persisting adolescence. Yet it seems, on reflection, that it could be their own way of sending a message about the state of the world to those who bear respon- sibilities, including their teachers. IN THE LATE 1950s, the noise came from the incessant loud talk of students eager to climb onto the ladder of success. Every student knew that rank order of achievement as measured by grades was where it was at. Then came the Kennedy years. Students and younger faculty were enormously excited by the new prospects for doing good at home and abroad with America's most powerful weapon: its technological and organizational know-how. After the 4ssassination, a great sadness descended, but hope was still openly voiced that the Kennedy promise could yet be realized. The campus anti-war movement was preceded in Berkeley by the explosive Free' Speech Movement of the fall of 1964; later, the tone of high- pitched anger was to be heard. The movement roared and ram- paged for six years and then abruptly faded after another ex- plosion over the killings at Kent State in early May 1970. IN THE 1970s, the earlier raucous voices were replaced by different ones: women firmly demanding equal rights, ecologists speaking against the spoiling of nature, preachers telling of old and new religions-and all over the cam- pus the sound of music. Why are college studen ts so quiet.? By Franz Schurmnn t~il