topic by
Infidel Louis
7/22/2002 (1:23) |
|
My son-in-law encouraged me to visit some websites on the Middle East and see what people were discussing. He just sent me this article and thought I would get a better understanding of the problems they have. He thinks that I AM too hard on the Palestinians.
I thought I'd share the article he sent me.
For a Jewish border By A.B.YEHOSHUA
In the summer of 2000, peace talks were held between the government of Israel and delegates of the Palestinian Authority, with a view to ending the conflict that began more than a century ago. The president of the United States was actively involved in these talks and gave assurances on behalf of the international community of political guarantees and vast financial aid for the peace project.
All the reliable evidence indicates that Israel made a far-reaching offer concerning the return of occupied territories, and that the Clinton plan went further yet in territorial and financial concessions to the Palestinians. Both sides seemed very close to concluding the negotiations positively, so much so that at the Taba talks they were a hair's breadth away from putting their signature to an actual agreement.
And then the Palestinians suddenly threw it all away, and resorted determinedly to extreme violence which rapidly assumed a grass-roots, spontaneous character. All the efforts of the international community to put an end to the wave of violence and bring the two parties back to the negotiating table, through an explicit promise for the establishment of a Palestinian state, proved futile.
Then, as the increasingly suicidal violence raged unabated, a new wave of hatred towards Jews swept across the Arab and Muslim world, and part of the West too, until it now appears that this entire region which only a few short years ago was full of promise for political and economic cooperation is being plunged into an abyss of savage hatred.
When the Palestinians are called upon to explain their motives, no logical explanation is forthcoming, only the obsessive reiteration of past and present injustices. The harder Israel hits, as it re-occupies territory that had previously been turned over to Palestinian Authority rule, the greater the violence, to the point that we are dealing not with individual suicide bombers but with collective suicide.
AN IRRATIONAL outbreak of consuming hatred to the point of suicide, just when rapprochement was in sight, requires special attention, for there are precedents in Jewish history: the most terrible case, given all the differences in kind and in degree, is that of Germany in the late 1920s.
Following the end of World War I, Germany became a democracy for the first time in its history. Jews began to integrate into all facets of civic life, particularly economic and cultural activity. Contemporary descriptions evoke a colorful German-Jewish cultural Golden Age. Only a few short years later, a wave of murderous anti-Semitism swept over the political echelons and the general public in Germany, followed, after the outbreak of World War II, by large parts of Europe. The systematic extermination of Jews began, its viciousness unparalleled in human history.
This steep rise in anti-Semitic feeling merits special attention.
For the question what could be the motive, the aim, and the use of extermination has no logical, substantive answer. The Jews held no territory that the Germans desired, and their property was negligible compared with the resources expended in exterminating them; besides, it could just as well have been confiscated without putting them to death.
Furthermore, Jews shared no single ideology, nor did their religion compete with any others, and the Nazis were anyhow sworn enemies of religion per se; moreover, many Jews were secular. And yet, Hitler and his followers were frantically preoccupied with the Jews. To his very last days in his bunker under the ruins of Berlin, as he prepared to commit suicide, Hitler clung to his belief that it was not the Russians nor the Americans nor the British who defeated him, but the Jews, the very ones he had tried to exterminate with such unfathomable cruelty.
The cause and motive of this outbreak of animosity and rejection must be analyzed; furthermore, it is also a patently Zionist imperative, for early Zionism grappled with the riddle of the causes underlying anti-Semitic sentiment. There is something symbolic in that the concept of anti-Semitism itself was coined by Wilhelm Marr in the early 1880s, a few years before Theodor Herzl's Zionist revelation and the spread of the Zionist movement.
NUMEROUS penetrating books studies as well as literary works were published prior to the Holocaust by early Zionist thinkers such as Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl, Ber Borochov, Nahman Sirkin, and Moshe Leib Lilienblum, and novelists Haim Hazaz, Yosef Haim Brenner and many others in an attempt to unearth the sources of the hatred towards Jews.
This search became all the more vital and urgent after the Holocaust. These works were composed with a healthy dose of soul-searching; the criticism to which Jews subjected themselves could be more scathing than that leveled by non-Jews. The founders of Zionism, whose memory we honor by studying their writings and by naming streets and institutions after them, were accused in their time of self-hatred, due to that self-criticism, as in this typical passage from the influential 'Autoemancipation,' by early Zionist ideologue Leo Pinsker (1821-1891), first published in Russia in 1882: 'Our homeland is in foreign parts, our unity in diffusion; coming together is our bane. Our weapon is surrender, our shield escape. Originality lies in adapting, our future in tomorrow. This is the despicable life led by a people which of old produced the Hasmoneans!'
The description of the interaction between the Jew and his surroundings leads to an investigation of the perceived threat posed by the fluid borders of Jewish identity, combining as it does religion and nationality without an independent territorial existence. Consequently, the Jews are able to integrate intimately into the non-Jewish milieu, while at the same time preserving a discreet, practically insoluble nucleus of identity. Add to that the complex image of the weak, vulnerable Jew who is also possessed of mysterious powers due to the Jewish international existence and connections (see The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion).
These and other insights obviously constitute no justification or vindication of anti-Semitism, nor do they purport to stop Jews from fighting anti-Semitism in the name of liberalism and democracy. But they are intended to raise Jewish self-awareness, to encourage Jews to comprehend what they evoke in the other and analyze the complexities of the integration of Jews in their surroundings throughout history.
The intention is that we Jews become more adept at deciphering reality, take pains not to delude ourselves, and act cautiously so as not to be unpleasantly surprised. These painstaking and painful analyses led to the simple, logical conclusion of Zionism, which called for creating a sovereign Jewish reality that would be as dissociated as possible from that vexed life without boundaries in a non-Jewish world, where, even if life could be maintained there for millennia, it exacted a heavy price that culminated in the tragic, terrible finality of the Holocaust.
In fact, perceptive, self-critical German Jews such as renowned scholar of Jewish mysticism Gershom Scholem, and others, who could perceive both the German and Jewish cultures' inner codes, acknowledged that timely 'unilateral separation' from fateful integration with the Germans was a prerequisite. Consequently, they followed it up by immigrating to Eretz Yisrael as Zionists in the 1920s, so as to construct an independent, sovereign, autonomous Jewish reality.
It is noteworthy that traditional Orthodox Jewry refused to confront the issue of anti-Semitism and study its causes. To them, 'Esau hated Jacob' became an all-inclusive, metaphysical, absolute dictum precluding any rational attempt at understanding hatred towards Jews. They also came to believe that there were reasonable, permanent doses of hatred that one could live with. This view freed Jews of personal responsibility for their own fate and for history if all is predestined, what point is there in pondering unnecessary questions?
IN TRYING to understand the sudden collapse of Palestinian inclinations towards rapprochement and peace, which took more than a few Arab-world experts and scholars by surprise, we must study Palestinian historical and cultural codes, addressing the 'problematicness' of a national identity swinging between affiliation with a big rich Arab family, on the one hand, and the existence of a small people that never experienced a single moment's independence in its land, on the other.
Palestinian identity was forged by struggle and conflict with the Jews; prolonging the conflict may possibly be a sine qua non for the continued emergence of that identity.
We must also inquire how and why we, an ancient people with a tortuous, conflict-ridden history harking back to antiquity, are to be inserted, for better or for worse, into these codes. What do we evoke, convey, and fan, in our existence and behavior, whether conscious or unconscious?
An understanding such as this would not absolve our attackers from their guilt, nor even seek to divide it equally among us and them. But the need to understand is entailed in the moral responsibility we bear for ourselves.
Only by true self-understanding can we chart our course, set it straight when there are deviations, and confront reality better: these questions we raise stem not from self-hatred but from self-preservation.
Where then does the crux of the matter lie? If I had to use a single word to define Zionism, I would say borders. And if I were permitted a second word, I would add sovereignty.
What is sovereignty? It is not merely a flag in the breeze or a police station. It means that every thing and each person within the borders defined by the state falls under its jurisdiction and supervision. Borders are like doors in a house which claim everything inside as the responsibility of the master. This is what Zionism means realizing Jewish sovereignty within defined borders.
What is obvious and natural for any other nation was an innovation and upheaval in the Jewish essence, which is overwhelmingly the history of a people without borders or of people crossing borders: a history of non-sovereignty.
Jewish identity inherently lacks borders; it wanders around the world, a traveler between hotels. A Jew can change countries and languages without losing his Jewishness, a blend of nationalism and religion.
This identity is founded primarily on religious, traditional rituals and customs, and for this reason is easy to take along. A Jew can maintain his identity alone, in his soul, and do as he sees fit with it, for there is no binding imposition dictating reciprocal relations between fellow Jews. One's Jewish identity is frequently discovered late in life, and often one fails to grasp its substance (see for instance the proliferation of symposia addressing the question of 'Who is a Jew?' or 'What is a Jew?').
In the Diaspora, a Jew is free of the rule of fellow Jews and may interpret his Jewishness and imbue it with whatever content he desires, without being answerable to a Jewish king or a Jewish government, nor is any pope or bishop charged with determining the codes and content of his religion.
Every individual interprets the Jewish rituals according to his understanding, and chooses a rabbi of his own liking; if the rabbi proves to be unsuitable, he can be replaced by another. It follows that it is not the territorial expanse of a homeland that is Zionism's main thrust, but the borders in which Jews can enjoy full sovereignty. This is the salient point that Zionism sought to correct in the problematic interaction of Jews in their surroundings in the Diaspora: by creating a total, sovereign Jewish reality in a defined territory.
FOLLOWING the Six Day War, it became clear that Israel would not be able to impose its rule on the occupied territories, and that Israel would be unable for international reasons, too, but mainly for internal demographic ones to annex the territories and extend full civil rights to the entire Palestinian population, as it had done for the Israeli-Arab minority after the War of Independence.
Israel now had to take care not to extend its borders into territory where it would be unable to apply its full sovereignty. Military forces could be deployed in the territories, occupying them until our demands for security, and perhaps for peace, could be met but by the standards of Zionist sovereignty, it was wrong to try to create the illusion of sovereignty over territory where we would not be able to exercise it fully, as the Bible tells us: 'You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike' (Lev. 24:22).
The Six Day War was labelled 'the Jewish war,' and with good reason, for the old Jewish spirit within us was roused like a ghost, and lapsed into its historical mischief, as when it settled the world over, in the midst of non-Jews, to pursue a Jewish identity in a non-Jewish world. We committed the anti-Zionist act of building settlements without sovereignty or hope of sovereignty, in the thick of the national existence of another people.
And so, in the midst of a Palestinian population without citizenship, Jewish settlements cropped up for Jews with Israeli citizenship who are protected by a Jewish army, and once again, as we did in the Diaspora, we made that unhealthy connection between our national bloodstream and that of a foreign people; no wonder that again severe poisoning had set in, worse than ever, worse than when the conflict was limited to territorial disputes: the settlements exacerbated the conflict in the extreme.
The consequences of all that soon became clear. Those who undermine the sovereignty of others in their homeland, intending to introduce a vacuum of non-sovereignty, ultimately shatter their own sovereignty, shatter the most valuable aspect of a state its borders, the awareness of borders, and the actuality of borders, and, most importantly the protection gained by defending those borders.
What has failed in the wake of the past two years' violence was not the essence of the Oslo Accords, namely recognition of the Palestinian right to an independent state; many Israeli right-wingers subscribe to that view now, including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
THE REASON for the failure of the Oslo Accords is twofold: First, there was no a priori agreement as to the details of the solution.
Israel did not specify in advance the extent of territory it would concede, and the status the Palestinians would enjoy in Jerusalem; the Palestinians, for their part, did not forgo in advance the right of return, and failed to meet the demand for disarmament of the future state of weapons that could be used against Israel. Both sides entered the corridor of peace without being sure where it would lead.
The second cause was Yasser Arafat's and some of his followers' unreliability, corruption and support of terror.
And yet, it was not the Israeli Left that touted Arafat as a partner for peace. He became the default addressee after years in which a succession of Israeli leaders both Labor and Likud thwarted proposals made by Jordan's King Hussein, first in 1972, then in 1987, that the territories become part of a federation with Jordan. All the attempts on the part of a moderate local leadership in the territories to introduce a candidate who could bring about the establishment of the Palestinian state were also thwarted by Israeli governments, leaving the Palestinians no choice but to consider the PLO as their true leadership.
Even if we are not directly accountable for the grim process of self-destruction the Palestinians are currently undergoing, we are willy-nilly being dragged into it as partners.
And so, we must do all that is in our power to help them and us extricate ourselves from this spiralling madness, and offer the Palestinians hope that they, too, will ultimately realize the natural right of any people the right to independence and sovereignty in its homeland.
For us, the Palestinians are not what the Vietnamese were to the Americans, or the Algerians to the French, or the Afghans to the Russians. Although there was bitter fighting in those clashes, once they ended their struggle, the combating parties drew utterly apart, no longer maintaining any contact.
The Palestinians are our eternal neighbors, and will remain such even when a border is drawn; in many areas we will be working alongside each other. The grief over the bloodshed on both sides, the destruction, the humiliations, will separate the two peoples for many generations and continue to poison the air we all breathe.
It is thus imperative that we try to understand what they are undergoing in their relationship with us, what is so threatening that young people are willing to sow destruction by suicide and the cult of death. We must endeavor, using unilateral measures as well, to help them and ourselves break loose of the spiralling madness that has sucked in both sides.
WE THINK in terms of guilty/not guilty as if we were on trial with the world as judge. But the charges against the Germans of reprehensible crimes after the Holocaust failed to bring even a single dead Jew back to life.
Similarly, the accusations of guilt, and the anger, both justified and unjustified, that we are directing towards the Palestinians will not bring even a single Israeli casualty back to life. The suffering victims must understand not only the nature of their own personal tragedy, but, if possible, its cause. Every suffering victim, individual and collective, is called upon to exercise self-criticism, and in particular the Jewish people practically history's eternal victim must do so as we face a new onslaught of hatred and threats of destruction.
The poet Haim Guri told me a few days ago that not a day goes by in which he doesn't think about the Holocaust. It's the same with me. Not just to grieve for our great loss but as a challenge spurring us to overturn every milestone in Jewish history, from Mount Sinai onward, in order to comprehend how, despite the numerous warning signals on the way, we now find ourselves embroiled in this catastrophe. Throughout history we delayed returning to our homeland, knowing it would entail breaking away from the perilous interaction with the surrounding nations.
We must therefore mobilize not only all our military forces, but our moral energy as well, to try to grasp what has been happening with the Palestinians who are dragging us into a new, comprehensive confrontation with the Arab world, and indeed the entire Muslim world, and what we must do unilaterally to alleviate the situation.
Since neither they nor we are at present capable of reaching the agreement we strove for at Camp David regarding the permanent border, it is imperative that we set this border ourselves, temporarily, and withdraw from part of the territories, including the many remote settlements that preclude any possibility of drawing this border.
A border will protect us better against destructive suicide bombers, and will assist the saner elements in the Palestinian camp to stop them before they reach us, thus restricting the vicious cycle of their terror and our counter-attack. Unilateral withdrawal will make curfews, closures and roadblocks unnecessary, along with the daily suffering they cause the Palestinian population, and will prevent loss of life among the settlers and the soldiers charged with protecting them.
This partial, unilateral withdrawal will also debunk the false myth that the Arabs have subscribed to since the early days of Zionism, the myth of the Jew coming to rob their lands from the Nile to the Tigris. The image of the borderless Jew will become that of the Israeli within borders.
I am not so naive as to think that this will bring immediate peace.
Ours is a deep-rooted, complicated conflict, with many dangerous layers to it, and it has recently been aggravated by the unleashing of the quintessential forces of evil in the Arab and Muslim world, which care nothing for the Palestinian interests and are merely using them to fulfill their own aggressive needs. But this path will enable us at least to free ourselves partially from the suicidal Palestinian embrace while we wait for them to come to their senses. There are some indications that this is happening; the seeds of Palestinian self-criticism give us hope.
Translated by Sara Friedman
|
|