Issues of the Lavon Affair
To the Editor:
In his article [“The Lavon Affair,” February], Mr. Abramov has succeeded in giving a detailed picture of the events that led to the present political crisis in Israel. Yet on the whole, his presentation is superficial, if not misleading. . . .
Mr. Abramov, himself a political figure in Israel, has of course the full right to believe that “provided the étatist tendencies of some of the younger set are kept in check . . . it is reasonable to anticipate the eclipse of the Histadrut . . . and a consequent strengthening of the democratic process in the country.” But even Mr. Abramov’s own party, though it desires the eclipse of the Histadrut, did not dare suggest that the victory of the étatists over the defenders of the “Histadrut’s hegemony” was a guarantee for democracy. The party believed that free enterprise—or the eclipse of the Histadrut—might help maintain economic prosperity in Israel (though some would argue that this “prosperity” is not shared by more than half of the population and depends upon foreign resources which are probably temporary). . . . Moreover, Mr. Abramov did not even mention several of the issues which were so vehemently discussed by almost all who participated in the debate about Lavon: the question of whether or not the Israeli army, or the defense of Israel, should remain taboo, beyond public control and criticism. . .; the extent of Mr. Ben Gurion’s privilege to force his dictat upon his party, the Knesset, or the government, in the name of defense needs which necessarily excluded discussion; the question of étatist interests . . . over all other causes, moral principles, voluntary organizations, etc. . . .
Mati Meged
Kiryat Tivon, Israel
_____________
