THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE y» relations between people, a scheme on which to build a common future, just as “ autonom y” was supposed to be what “ the Arabs o f Erctz Israel” reatly wanted. Nor was this all. W hat we must again see is the issue involving representation, an issue always lurking near the question o f Palestine. I said earlier that Zionism always undertakes to speak for Palestine and the Palestinians; this has always meant a blocking operation, by which the Palestinian cannot be heard from (or represent himself) directly on the world stage. Just as the expert Orientalist believed that only he could speak (paternally as it w ere) for the natives and primitive societies that he had studied— his presence denoting their absence— so too the Zionists spoke to the world on behalf of the Palestinians, This has not everyw here and anytim e been possible, as every insurgent movement since W orld W ar II has learned to its advantage. In an age o f mass and sometimes instant communication, sensational guerrilla or terrorist ex­ ploits can “ speak” directly, can represent directly an otherwise blocked presence. In time, this repressed presence filters through, the more so, as was the case with most Israelis, when it is denied. In the final analysis, this latest denial o f the Palestinians has turned out to be the greatest (but most inevitable) mistake made by Zionism since its inception. This is something 1 shall discuss in the next chapter; here we should detail some recent instances o f the hegemonic liberal-Zionist union in order to complete the series of examples I began with Niebuhr and Wilson. It has been generally true, 1 think, that one almost infallible index o f acceptability and political legitimacy in the United States is who speaks for what. O ne reason for the powerful (nonetheless highly selective) legitimacy o f the N L F in this country was the spectrum o f highly placed, highly visible, and otherwise prominent figures speaking against the U .S . enter­ prise in Vietnam . When Dr. Spock, Jane Fonda, Noam Chom sky, and Senator M cGovern all condcmn the same thing, they can be taken to be validating the opposite o f what they condemn. Conversely in the ease o f Israel, when speaking warmly for and on behalf o f Israel is considered de rigueur for